Sitting of 8 August 1907

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Llandrindod Wells Gas Bill; London County Council (Money) Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Kilmarnock Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Kilmarnock Corporation Water," presented by Mr. Sinclair, and ordered, under Section 7 of the Act, to be considered upon Monday next.

MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Finance Bill, without Amendment; Married Women's Property Bill; Leith Burgh Order Confirmation Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to:—Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend sections fifty-seven,
298
fifty-eight, and fifty-nine of The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, relating to the prevention of infectious diseases." [Public Health (Scotland) Amendment Bill [Lords.]
Leith Burgh Order Confirmation Bill. Lords' Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 303.]

PETITIONS.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Newferry, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PHARMACY (IRELAND) ACTS, 1875 TO 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 6th of August, 1907, approving of a Regulation made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ALIENS ACT, 1905.
  Copy presented, of Return of Alien Passengers brought to the United Kingdom from Ports in Europe or within the Medterranean Sea during the three months ending 30th June, 1907; together with the number of Expulsion Orders made during that period requiring Aliens to leave the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report, No. 534 (Gold Coast, Annual Report for 190(5) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Acts, etc., for he

  299
  year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  METEOROLOGICAL COMMITTEE.
  Copy presented, of Second Report of the Meteorological Committee to the Lords' Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, for the year ending 31st March, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PERMANENT CHARGES COMMUTA TION.
  Copy presented, of Return of Permanent Charges on the Consolidated Fund or Votes of Parliament which have been redeemed in the period from 6th August, 1905, to 6th August, 1907 [by Act]; to He upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3888 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  County Court Rules.—Copy of County Court Rules, dated 31st July, 1907, with Explanatory Memorandum [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  London Non-Provided Schools.
  MR. A. ALLEN: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that with regard to very many non-provided schools the London County Council has authorised the indefinite postponement of many structural improvements which were decided by the Council, after careful survey, to be necessary, and against the reasonableness and necessity of which no appeal has been made by the managers to the Board of Education;
  300
  and whether he will direct the inspectors of the Board of Education to pay special attention to the structural condition of these schools.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) No, Sir, my attention has not been drawn to the matter in question, and I have no information as to what schools are referred to. It is one of the duties of His Majesty's inspectors to pay attention to the structural condition of all schools inspected by them and to report to the Board as to the particular cases where repairs or improvements are required.

  Mortgaging Trust Property.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the President of the Board of Education in how many cases since 1903 have the Board of Education or Charity Commissioners sanctioned the mortgaging of trust property for the repair or improvement of non-provided elementary schools, and what is the aggregate amount of such mortgages; and in how many cases have the Board sanctioned the application of the capital fund of an endowment for such purposes and the total amount of money so applied, giving the figures separately for London and for the rest of the country, and distinguishing between the different religious denominations.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.)—
  Statement showing—
  I.—The number of cases in which the Board of Education have authorised Loans on the security of the School Buildings of Non-Provided Elementary Schools, for structural improvements or repairs, since 1st January, 1903; and
  II.—The number of cases in which the Board have expressed their willingness to authorise such Loans, but in which the authority has not been formally sealed;
  with the aggregate amount of such Loans, distinguishing between Schools

  301
  situated in the area of the London County Council and those in the rest of England

  I.

  II.

  Cases.

  Amounts.

  Cases.

  Amounts.

  £

  £

  (A) London:

  Church of England

  —

  —

  10

  7,500

  Wesleyan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roman Catholic

  1

  2,500

  —

  —

  Undenominational, etc.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1

  2,500

  10

  7,500

  (B) Rest of England and Wales:

  Church of England

  8

  10,870

  6*

  2,150

  Wesleyan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roman Catholic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Undenominational, etc.

  1

  250

  —

  —

  Total

  9

  11,120

  6*

  2,150

  Gross total

  10

  13,620

  16*

  9,650

  * This number includes one case in which the amount of the proposed loan is not yet settled.

  In order to supply the particulars referred to in the second part of my hon. friend's Question with respect to the expenditure of capital funds of endowments, it would be necessary to examine in detail a very large number of orders and schemes made by the Board in the ordinary routine of their administration under the Charitable Trusts Acts, and I am of opinion that the labour involved in such a task would not be commensurate with any public advantage to be derived from it.

  Mail Subsidies.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Postmaster-General could he give
  and Wales, and between Schools of various denominations.
  the names of the companies to whom payments are at present made for the conveyance of mails to British Possessions and other countries; the amount in each case of such payments and the period for which they are payable; the route by which such mails are in each case carried; and the terminal ports.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Most of the information asked for by the hon. Member is given in Appendix D of the Postmaster-General's Annual Report. I am sending him a statement giving him additional information on the subject.

  Shrewsbury Assistant Inspectorship of Telegraph Messengers.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a number of postmen at Shrewsbury have been denied opportunities of proving their qualifications for the post of assistant inspector of telegraph messengers in favour of a junior man; and whether he will see that the senior men at Shrewsbury are granted opportunities of showing their fitness for the post before filling up the appointment.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) No junior officer will be selected until all those of his seniors who are likely to be among the best qualified have been granted due opportunities of trial. To test all the senior officers would not only create much delay, but probably prejudice the interests of the service.

  Princes Risborough Rural Postman.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Mr. Baker, of Princes Risborough, is only paid 4d. an hour as an auxiliary postman, although the regulations state that 4½d. per hour is the proper rate for auxiliaries in places where established men rise to a maximum of £1 a week as at Princes Risborough; whether he is aware that an application for proper payment has been rejected; and whether he will take steps to see that Mr. Baker receives the pay due to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The regulations admit of payment at the rate of 4d. per hour for rural auxiliary duties at offices where established men rise to a maximum of £1 a week. I will inquire whether the circumstances justify any increase in Mr. Baker's wage.

  Isle Royale, Lake Superior.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British flag has been hoisted upon Isle Royale, Lake Superior; and, if so, was this done by the instructions or with the approval of His Majesty's Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has received no information
  304
  as to the reported hoisting of the British flag upon Isle Royale. Inquiry will be made.

  Transvaal Legislative Assembly.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the Bills introduced or read a second time in the Legislative Assembly of the Transvaal on Tuesday last, and especially in respect of the Bill first published in an extraordinary Government Gazette of Saturday 3rd August, abolishing the access of natives to the courts of law in respect of decisions administratively taken by which individual natives or whole tribe s can be transferred against their will from one district to another; and whether any Papers on the subject can be presented to Parliament in advance of the earliest possible occasion on which such measure might become law.
  MR. MOLTENO: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what is the nature of the Draft Bill, published by the Transvaal Government, dealing with jurisdiction among natives; and whether this measure proposes to deprive the natives of any civil rights such as access to the Courts of Law.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has no information beyond what has appeared in the Press, but telegraphic inquiry is being made as to the Bill, which appears to be of such a nature as to require it to be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure.

  Telegraph Poles.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the telegraph poles used in the Post Office service in Ireland are imported from Sweden and Russia into England; whether they are creosoted in England and then sent on to Ireland; and, if so, will he explain why they are not imported direct into Ireland and creosoted there instead of in England.

  305
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The poles come at present from. Norway, Sweden, and Russia, otherwise the facts are as stated by the hon. Member. I do not know whether the two creosoting firms in Ireland, one in Dublin and one in Belfast, would be able to undertake the work of creosoting telegraph poles, but they will have an opportunity of tendering when tenders are invited later in the year.

  Irish Post Office Service.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state, for the five financial years ended 1906–7, the total expenditure for each year on each of the various kinds of stores, including clerical work, housing accommodation, fire and light, stationery, and all other incidentals in connection therewith, required for the Irish Post Office service and the proportion of these amounts expended in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The kinds of stores in use are many thousands in number, and the great expense which would be involved in such an inquiry as my hon. friend desires would not be justified.

  Irish Post Office Stores.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether an estimate is prepared for each financial year showing an approximation of the various store requirements for the Post Office service in Ireland; and, if so, will he explain why manufacturers are required to tender for the delivery of Irish supplies in London instead of in Dublin.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A separate estimate is prepared for Ireland. Manufacturers are required to tender for delivery in Ireland in the case of uniform clothing, head dresses, parcel baskets, and other stores. But in the case of certain articles the proportion required for use in Ireland is so small that this course is not practicable.

  Scottish Sheep Stocks.
  MR. MORTON: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Law
  306
  Officers have yet given their opinion on the valuation of sheep stocks in Scotland under the Agricultural Act, 1906; and, if so, will the Government make known the result.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative; and, with regard to the second part, I understand that it is contrary to the usual practice to publish opinions of the Law Officers of the Grown.

  Kew Gardens Stalls.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been directed to the fact that another private contractor has been allowed to establish himself in Kew Gardens, and that at several of the entrances this contractor has erected stalls covered with guides, postcards, etc., displayed in such a way as to be eyesores; and whether he will give instructions for these erections to be removed and the profits on the sales of guides, etc., reserved entirely for the taxpayers who maintain the gardens.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The right to sell guide books, postcards, etc., at Kew Gardens has been entrusted to a private firm in order to relieve the constables of a task which interfered with the performance of their proper duties. The firm in question pay an annual rent for the privilege, and in addition they have borne the cost of erecting one permanent and one movable kiosk. No complaint has hitherto been made of their appearance, and my noble friend does not propose to alter the present arrangement, which has been made in the interests of the general public as well as with the object of increasing the efficiency of the garden staff.

  Derbyshire Pupil Teachers Grant.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the grant payable to local education authorities in respect of the training of pupil teachers, which

  307
  was due on 31st July, 1906, has been paid to the local education authority for Derbyshire; if so, at what date it was paid; and whether the local authority is unable to distribute this grant pending the receipt of particulars from the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Claims for grant for 1905–6 were received from the local education authority during the period from the 3rd October, 1906, to 14th January, 1907. Payments to the authority to the amount of £2,386 5s. have been made on various dates from 5th February to 24th July last. Grants to the amount of about £240 are still under consideration, and can probably be paid shortly. Delay in the payment of grants has been caused by the correspondence which has been necessary on many items incorrectly entered in the forms of claim, and on not infrequent cases of failure to comply with the regulations. With regard to the last part of the Question, the local education authority has been informed, whenever part or all of the grant has been withheld, of the name of the pupil teacher on whom disallowance or deduction has been made and of the reasons for it. On the 2nd instant the authority forwarded a list of pupil teachers on whom grant was claimed for 1905–6, and asked that the grant paid on each might be entered. As considerable clerical work is involved in comparing the authority's list with those in the office, and in preparing and checking the information required, the matter has not yet been dealt with.

  Metropolitan Police Commission.
  MR. BYLES: To ask the Secretary for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the Proceedings of the Royal Commission on the Metropolitan police, when an ex-police constable named George Deed confessed upon oath that, at the previous sitting of the Commission, he had deliberately perjured himself; whether this witness was severely reprimanded by the Chairman, who told him that he had placed himself in a very serious position indeed, and that it would be the duty of the Commission to consider whether any action ought or ought
  308
  not to be taken against him; and whether the Police Commissioner, in the interests of the police force, will prosecute this man.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I find on inquiry that the facts are as stated in the Question. The Chairman of the Commission said to Deed, "I have to tell you that you have placed yourself in a very serious position indeed, and it will be the duty of this Commission to consider whether any action ought or not to be taken against you." The matter is at present entirely in the hands of the Royal Commission. If they should recommend that any action should be taken, I need not say it shall receive serious attention from the Government; Deed was dismissed from the Metropolitan police force nearly four years ago.

  Railway Conveyance of Milk in Ireland.
  MR. HALPIN: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he will inquire into the railway system for carrying milk, seeing that the railway van is at present the only means by which long-distant milk can be conveyed from the producer to the public; whether he is aware that in some cases the van is dirty and ill-ventilated and that along with the milk are carried hides, carcasses of meat, and live fowls; and whether he will use his influence with the railway companies to have milk carried in pure milk vans.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) If by "railway van" is meant the guard's van, the Department are not aware that this is the only kind of vehicle by which milk is conveyed over long distances. The transit inspectors of the Department have instructions to report any cases which come under their notice of milk being carried in dirty vehicles or with articles likely to taint it, and in any such reported cases the matter is taken up with the carrying company concerned. If specific instances are brought under the notice of the Department they will have full inquiry made.
  MR. HALPIN: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he will inquire

  309
  into the carriage of milk, which in some cases is 100 per cent. higher than the owner's risk rate; and whether, seeing that the conditions attached to the owner's risk rate mean that the railway company are not responsible for damage done to milk or cans, unless it can be proved that the company's servants, through wilful misconduct, have caused the injury, he will take action to protect farmers from such damage.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The Department are not aware that rates 100 per cent. over the owner's risk rates are charged for the conveyance of milk on Irish railways, but if instances are furnished in which the charges are considered excessive the Department will have inquiry made. The question of damage to goods forwarded at owner's risk is a general one, affecting many descriptions of traffic, but if any specific instances of damage to milk conveyed at owner's risk are furnished to the Department full inquiry will be made.

  Proficiency Pay in India.
  MR. JOWETT: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, under the new system of proficiency pay, men serving in India who have re-engaged for twelve months, in consideration of receiving 6d. a day extra pay, are liable to lose 2½d. a day in the event of their being classed as second-class shots, although no such deduction was contemplated or agreed to at the time of signing on; and whether, in view of the fact that this deduction may be regarded as a breach of contract, he can amend the order regarding proficiency pay.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The conditions upon which men serving in India have agreed to extend their service include neither a promise of extra pay nor a guarantee against the reduction of proficiency pay from 6d. to 3d. a day in the case of a man who ceases to qualify as a first-class shot. This reduction takes place also under War Office regulations, and was not introduced with the new system, a similar reduction having been made in service pay, in similar circumstances, under the old rules.

  Exchequer Grants for Labourers Cottages in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the amount allocated to each county of Ireland from the Exchequer contribution for labourers' cottages for the years ending 31st March, 1006 and 1907 respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The particulars in respect of the financial year 1905–6 are contained in the Annual Report of the Local Government Board for that year. The Report for 1906–7, which will shortly be issued, will contain the figures for that financial year.

  Scartaglen Evicted Tenant.
  MR. JOHN MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Mr. Tangney, of Scartaglen, county Kerry, as an evicted tenant; and if they have taken any steps in connection therewith.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received an application from John Tangney, and have ascertained that the applicant was evicted in 1893, was reinstated in 1899, and in 1902 purchased his holding under the older Land Purchase Acts. The Commissioners cannot make a grant to Tangney, which is apparently what he wants.

  Headley Estate, Kerry.
  MR. JOHN MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are aware of the manner in which Mr. Ned Pembroke of Castleisland, county Kerry, is being treated in connection with the sale of the Headley estate; and whether they will take steps that he may be allowed to purchase his holding on the estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received a communication from Mr. Pembroke, which will be considered when the estate in question comes before them. Up to the present no proceedings for

  311
  the sale of the estate have been instituted before the Commissioners.

  Civil Governor of Malta.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: To ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to make an announcement as to the status and salary of the Civil Governor of Malta, and the relation between his department and that of the Commander-in-Chief.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The salary has not yet been settled. As to the rest of the Question, will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a Question put to-day by my hon. friend the Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool?

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    German Navy Bill.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any official translation of the German Navy Bill, 1906, has been published in this country, and whether he can arrange for a copy of the Gorman Naval Estimates to be placed in the library for the use of Members.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): So far as I can ascertain no translation of the German Navy Bill has been published. As regards the second Question, it is not usual for the Admiralty to present to the library anything except their own publications.

    Home Fleet.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty on how many days sea training has been given to the Home Fleet in the last six months; and on how many nights the Home Fleet has been at sea for training during the same period.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The information asked for is not available at the Admiralty. An accurate Answer would involve calling for a return from each of the 240 vessels of the Home Fleet, to which I am not prepared to assent.

    The Press and the Spithead Review.
    MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that one of His Majesty's ships was placed at the disposal of gentlemen of the Press at the recent Spithead review, he will say if the cost incurred was defrayed out of public money.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Press representatives having requested facilities they were granted, and the cost (about £25) will be defrayed out of public funds.

    Members and Naval Reviews.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will say why no facilities were given to Members of this House to attend, at their own expense, the naval review at Spithead on 3rd August; whether he is aware that the Secretary of State for War has given every facility to Members to attend military manœuvres; and will he say the reasons why the First Lord has not followed this practice.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No indication reached the Admiralty of any general desire on the part of Members to attend the review. Had any such desire been expressed it would certainly have been complied with.
    MR. MARKHAM: In the case of future reviews are hon. Members to go to the Admiralty and state their desire to go to the review? Is there any precedent for giving facilities to the Press when they are not given to Members of the House?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I had not the slightest idea that there was any desire on the part of hon. Members to go to the review. If any such desire had been expressed it would most certainly have been complied with.
    MR. MARKHAM: At least twenty Members spoke to me on the subject.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The only Member who spoke to me about it was the hon. Member himself, and that at the last moment, and I did my best to give him facilities.

    New Military Command in the Mediterranean.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the proposal to create a Mediterranean command, with headquarters at Malta, is to be carried into effect; and, if so, when.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): His Majesty's Government have decided to create a new command in the Mediterranean with headquarters at Malta, and I should like to take this opportunity of making an announcement as to the future arrangements for the conduct of civil and military affairs in the Mediterranean. The King has approved of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught being appointed thereto as Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief and High Commissioner in the Mediterranean. The force under His Royal Highness's command will comprise the garrisons of Gibraltar and Malta, the detachments in Crete and Cyprus, and the British troops quartered in Egpyt and the Sudan. As all matters of local military administration, except the more important cases of discipline, will continue to be disposed of by the Governors of Gibraltar and Malta, and the General Officer Commanding in I Egypt, His Royal Highness will be able to devote his attention to inspection and training, and to the consideration of questions of strategy and defence within the limits of his command. For the Colonial administration of Gibraltar and Malta the respective Governors will remain solely responsible; and similarly in Egypt and the Sudan all civil and political matters will be dealt with as heretofore by the Agent and Consul-General in Egypt, to whom the Governor-General of the Sudan and Sirdar will continue to be responsible for the administration of the Sudan and of the Egyptian and Sudanese forces. In regard to questions of policy which involve military considerations the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief and High Commissioner will be consulted by the representatives of the Foreign and Colonial Offices before they lay their views on such questions before their respective Departments. I may add that the creation of this new command will cause no increase of expenditure. The date on which His Royal Highness will take up
    314
    his command has not yet been definitely fixed.

    Military Bands at Political Gatherings.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary for War if he was aware that the band of the Berks Imperial Yeomanry was advertised to perform at a political demonstration on Saturday, and had the consent of the War Office been obtained, or what action was it proposed to take.
    MR. HALDANEreplied that he was inquiring into the matter.

    Typhoid Fever at Bulford Camp.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state how many outbreaks of typhoid fever have occurred at Bulford Camp, and at what intervals; how many cases have resulted fatally; and what steps he proposes to take to protect the lives of officers and men from the grave risks to which they are exposed.
    MR. HALDANE: Since 1900 there have been sixteen cases of enteric fever among the regular troops at Bulford—two in 1903, three in 1904, three in 1905, and eight in June, 1907. None of these cases were fatal. As regards the Auxiliary Forces, of whom 45,000 were camped at Bulford in 1906, there were nine cases in the Honourable Artillery Company, of which it is understood two proved fatal. Full investigations were carried out by specialist sanitary officers into the outbreaks of 1904, 1906, and 1907, and though no definite cause for the origin of the disease could be traced, in each instance the available evidence pointed to the introduction of the infection from without and not to any sanitary defects within the camp area. The medical and sanitary arrangements of the camp are supervised by the Principal Medical Officer of the Southern Command and the Administrative Medical Officer, Tidworth District, who have the assistance of a specially qualified sanitary officer in dealing with the prevention of infectious disease among the troops.

    Lichfield Camp Palliasse Contracts.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. Mace, of Liverpool, obtained the contract for the

    315
    supply of palliasse straw to the camps at Lichfield, which contract he arranged was to be carried out for him by Mr. W. H. Bowering, of Lichfield, and, on the latter inquiring from Captain Coulson, in command of the Army Service Corps at Lichfield, was told by him that the approximate quantity required would be 60 tons; whether he is aware that the camps only took 18½ tons, thus involving the contractor in loss, and that, on Mr. Bowering inquiring the reason for the diminished quantity required, one of the quartermasters informed him that they never did draw all that was allowed, but requisitions for the balance could be had for a consideration, such consideration being that the price of the straw undelivered was divided between the contractor and the quartermaster; if he can inform the House what was the name and corps of the quartermaster referred to; and what steps are being taken to inquire into the matter and to protect the public and contractors from being victimised by officers in the Army whose duties involve the ordering, passing, and receiving of supplies.
    MR. HALDANE: There is no information in the War Office concerning the alleged transaction. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief will be asked to forward a report on the matter.

    Transvaal Labour Commission Inquiry.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if any statement will be made before the recess as to the report of the Commission appointed by the Transvaal Government to inquire into the question of the supply of labour; and if he can give the names of the Commissioners who are conducting the inquiry.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden, for Mr. CHURCHILL): The members of the Commission are Messrs. Stockenstroom, Member of the Legislative Assembly (Chairman), Whiteside, Cress-well, Francke, and Spencer. I have no information as to when its report is expected to be forthcoming.

    British Indian Merchants and Johannesburg Tramcars.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to auk the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Johannesburg Town Council has made certain by-laws prohibiting
    316
    the use by British Indian merchants and others of certain municipal tramcars; whether His Majesty's Government was previously consulted; and whether the powers of the Johannesburg Town Council exceed those of the Transvaal Legislature which, under the Constitution, is required to reserve all such differential legislation for His Majesty's approval.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (for Mr. CHURCHILL): The Johannesburg Town Council has made by-laws to the effect mentioned by the hon. Member. His Majesty's Government were not previously consulted. The town council derives its powers to make such by-laws from legislation passed by the Transvaal Legislature prior to the issue of the Letters Patent conferring responsible government on the Colony. The powers of the municipality are derived from a statute which it is of course within the competence of the Transvaal Legislature to vary.

    British Indians in the Transvaal.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Indian subjects resident in the Transvaal are still denied the right to hold fixed property; and whether, under the new Registration Act, law-abiding educated Indians will be compelled to carry passes, which they may be called upon by any policeman at any time to produce.
    MR. J. A. PEASE, (for Mr. CHURCHILL): The Answer to the first part of the Questionis in the affirmative; under the Asiatic Law Amendment Act holders of registration certificates under that Act are required to produce them to any policeman on demand.

    French Contraband Trade with the New Hebrides.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received further complaints from missionaries in the New Hebrides and Australian traders with the islands of the continued importation by French ships of contraband; whether the French Government have any means of preventing this traffic; and whether he will endeavour to hasten negotiations with the French Government

    317
    with a view to stopping it at the earliest possible moment in the interests alike of the natives and of British traders.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): No recent complaints have been received from missionaries or Australian traders, but a representation has been received from the Australian Government. His Majesty's Government are in communication with the French Government on the question of the prohibition of the sale of liquor, etc., to natives of the islands, and hope for a favourable reply shortly. They trust that, in any case, the provisions as to the sale of arms, liquor, etc., will be brought into force within the next few months. They have no information as to what means the French Government may have meanwhile of preventing the traffic.

    Great Britain and Russia.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to make a statement with respect to the terms of the agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative. I am unable to make any further statement.

    Turkey and Persia.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information respecting an incursion of Turkish troops into Persian territory; and whether any appeal has been made by the Persian Government to His Majesty's Government for assistance.
    MR. FELL: May I also ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House in regard to the alleged violation of Persian territory by Turkish troops, and the massacre at Mavaneh of eighteen men and sixty women and children, mostly Christians.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have been informed by the Persian Government that a force of Turkish troops with guns have crossed
    318
    into Persian territory near Urmia, have killed some villagers, and are inciting the Kurds to rebel. At the request of the Persian Government, His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has been instructed to make representations on the subject to the Turkish Government in the interest of peace.

    Post Office Savings Bank Assets.
    MR. MYER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what was the proportion per cent. of liquid or marketable assets to the whole of the assets held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Post Office Savings Bank in each year from 1861 to 1906 inclusive.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): The distinction suggested is one of degree, and it is therefore to a large extent a matter of opinion; and, in any case, the proportion of liquid or marketable securities to the whole of the assets held for the Post Office Savings Bank could not be given, without making a valuation of those securities. As I have recently explained, no such valuation has been given since 1902, when it was discontinued on the passing of the Act 4 Edw. VII., cap. 8. I may add, however, that till that date a statement showing the assets of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund, with a valuation thereof, was given in the Annual Reports of the Postmaster-General.
    MR. MYER: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the present position financially sound?
    MR. ASQUITH: Yes, with the Consolidated Fund as the security.

    Export Duty on Coal.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the present inflated prices of coal are injurious to the industries of this country and inflict hardship on small consumers, he will consider the desirability of appointing a Committee to inquire and report whether an export duty on coal could be imposed without injury to the best interests of the trade after the price of coal reaches a point which gives a fair return to the colliery

    319
    owner on his capital and to the miner for his labour.
    MR. ASQUITH: The question of an export duty on coal in all its bearings has received very full consideration by three successive Parliaments, as well as by His Majesty's present advisers and their predecessors in office; it was also dealt with by the recent Royal Commission on coal supplies in their Report, and I do not think that an inquiry such as is suggested would add anything to the information already available on the subject generally or with regard to the probable economic effects of the expedient proposed.
    MR. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of coal at Cardiff is now 21s., as compared with 14s. a few years since? Does he realise the hardship thus caused to the general community?
    MR. ASQUITH: I dare say the figures are as stated.

    Life-saving Apparatus in French Coal Mines.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the fact that the French Minister of Public Works has recently signed a decree ordering that every coal mine employing 100 men underground at the same time must be provided with a portable respiratory apparatus, ready for immediate use and enabling a miner to remain at least one hour in an irrespirable atmosphere, and that the number of such appliances must be not less than two for each pit, placed in charge of an engineer or inspector familiar with their working, and provided with ten picked men, trained in the use of the apparatus and ready to be sent to the seat of danger immediately the necessity arises; and whether he can see his way to insist upon similar precautions being observed in British coal mines.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): This matter was referred by me some time ago to the Royal Commission on Mines which is now sitting. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, a Report has already been presented by the Royal Commission on the question
    320
    of the use of rescue apparatus. The Com-mission did not feel justified in recommending that the provision of rescue apparatus should at the present time be made compulsory. They made, however, certain proposals for the establishment of central rescue stations, etc., and I am communicating with the owners with a view to their taking action.
    MR. FENWICK: Will the Commission report this session?
    MR. GLADSTONE: They may possibly make an interim Report. But they cannot finally report.

    Wages and the Price of Commodities.
    MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the statement appearing in the last Consular Report from the United States that the average increase of wages during the last ten years has been 20 per cent., but the increase in the price of commodities has been 40 per cent., and that the cost of living of many has, in consequence, gone beyond their means of obtaining income; and whether he has any official information confirming these statements.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I have seen the statement referred to. The information in the possession of the Board of Trade leads them to believe that the prices of necessaries in the United States have increased in late years in greater proportion than money wages. I doubt, however, whether the precise figures given in the statement afford altogether a fair comparison, since prices generally in the United States were abnormally low in 1897, the first year of the decennial period. Taking an average of the years 1895–9 and confining comparison to articles of food and clothing, the increase in prices would appear to be nearer 30 than 40 per cent.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether these statistics corresponded with those issued from the Statistical Bureau at Washington. Personally, he thought they did not.
    MR. C. E. PRICEasked whether the Consular Report did not distinctly state

    321
    that the figures were taken from the volume issued by the Statistical Bureau.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwas understood to say that this was the latest information the Board of Trade had got.
    In reply to a further Question from Mr. C. E. PRICE,
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the increased cost of the necessaries of life and clothing were out of proportion to the increase of wages.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is it not the fact that the figures refer largely to luxuries and not to the necessaries of life—to imported articles not manufactured in the country?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, Sir, they do not refer to imported articles largely luxuries. I would not call clothing a luxury.

    British and Foreign Trade Statistics.
    MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the usefulness to the public of Volume Cd. 1761, containing memoranda, statistical tables, and charts on British and Foreign Trade and industrial conditions, he will issue another and similar volume bringing the information contained therein up to date; and whether he will act in a similar manner as to the Return on the condition of trade and people moved for on 12th August, 1903.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Board of Trade have in preparation Reports dealing with several of the matters referred to in the two Fiscal Blue Books, but it is not proposed at present to publish any volumes on precisely the same lines. A Return on the lines of that moved for on the 12th August, 1903, has already been ordered on the Motion of the hon. Member for the Cirencester Division and will, I understand, be issued in a few days.

    Commercial Agents for the Colonies.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any British manufacturers, other than those who are members of the Consultative Committee of the Board of
    322
    Trade, have at any time made any representations to him that British consular or commercial agents should be appointed to the self-governing Colonies?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, Sir. Evidence in favour of such appointments was given on behalf of various Chambers of Commerce before the Departmental Committee on Commercial Intelligence of 1897–8. In addition we have recently received representations from certain British Chambers of Commerce and a Resolution from the last Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire.
    MR. HAROLD COX: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any definite information from any particular manufacturer that these Consular Reports are of use to him in his business?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: We have received representations in the usual way from Chambers of Commerce, which I think fairly represent the trade interest of the country.

    Danish Coal Imports.
    MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement which appears in the last Consular Report from Denmark that the total imports of coal to that country in 1906 was 2,668,500 tons; in 1905, 2,375,500 tons; that the figures for imports of coals from Germany were not available for 1906, but that in 1905 this import was 101,460 tons, much the same as during the previous year; that the export duty having now been abolished in the United Kingdom this small import of coals from Germany will practically cease; and whether he has any official information confirming these statements?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The figures quoted by my hon. friend would appear to be approximately correct. As regards the probable effect on imports of coal into Denmark of the abolition of the export duty in the United Kingdom, I have no official information at present beyond what is contained in the Consular Report.

    Board of Trade Consultative Commercial Committee.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade who are

    323
    the members of the Board of Trade Consultative Commercial Intelligence Committee; what manufacturing or trading firms do they represent; and by whom were they selected.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The twenty-five members of the Commercial Intelligence Committee include (besides myself as Chairman) seven officials representing the Board of Trade, Foreign Office, Colonial Office, and India Office; four representatives of the great self-governing Colonies—Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa; and thirteen members appointed by the Board of Trade in consultation with the Association of Chambers of Commerce. The names of the members of the present Committee, and the districts and trades with which they are connected, will be printed with the Votes.
    [The following is the list of names referred to.]
    Lord Avebury—London, General and Financial Interests.
    Mr. F. Brittain—Ex-President of the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce (Iron and Steel Trades).
    Mr. T. Craig-Brown—South of Scotland Chamber of Commerce (Woollen and Worsted Trades).
    Sir William Holland—(a Member of this House)—Ex-President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce (Cotton Trades).
    Sir Albert Rollit—London Chamber of Commerce and Hull District (General Mercantile Interests).
    Sir F. Forbes Adam—Ex-President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce (Cotton Trades).
    Sir Hugh Bell—North Eastern Districts (Iron and Steel Trades).
    Mr. W. H. Mitchell—President of the Bradford Chamber of Commerce (Woollen and Worsted Trades).
    Mr. R. Thompson—Belfast Chamber of Commerce (Linen Trades).
    Mr. D. A. Thomas (a Member of this House) South Wales (Coal and Tinplate Trades).
    Mr. E. Parkes—(a Member of this House) Birmingham Chamber of Commerce (Miscellaneous Metal Trades).
    324
    Mr. G. H. Cox—Liverpool Chamber of Commerce (General Mercantile business).
    There is also a vacancy occasioned I regret to say by the recent death of Mr. T. F. Blackwell (of the well known firm of Crosse and Blackwell, Ltd.), who represented the London Chamber of Commerce and the General Provision trades. I propose to fill this vacancy at an early date by the appointment of a further commercial representative.

    Commercial Agents in Self-Governing Colonies.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many consular or commercial agents it is proposed to appoint to the self-governing Colonies; what salary it is proposed to pay to them; and on what Vote that salary will be placed.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: These questions are still under consideration. The cost will, I presume, be a charge on the Vote for the Board of Trade.
    MR. HAROLD COX: Who will appoint these gentlemen?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: They will be appointed by the Board of Trade in consultation with the Colonial Office.
    MR. WEDGWOODasked whether it was intended that the information obtained would be confined to British manufacturers.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think it will be treated exactly as the information we are getting at the present moment from our Consuls abroad. A good deal of that is confidential and is only given to our own manufacturers, but a good deal that is embodied in the Reports is open to the whole world.
    MR. MYER: How can you expect to obtain information from foreign countries if your own information is not available to them?
    MR. HAROLD COX: How is it possible to keep the information secret?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think it is done very successfully at the present moment.
    MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked whether commercial agents were to be appointed for the Crown Colonies.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think that will be considered later on if these appointments prove successful.
    MR. CHARLES PRICE: Are we to understand that these Consuls will be under the Board of Trade and not the Foreign Office?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwas understood to reply in the affirmative.
    MR. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that ex-military men are not given these posts?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should say that those appointed should be business men.

    Tramcar Brakes.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the number of accidents to tramcars when descending hills; what is the position of the inquiry into the question of a satisfactory brake; and whether the promise that no further orders would be granted for tramways on steep gradients is being carried out.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My attention has been called to accidents of this character and inquiries have been ordered in two cases that occurred within the last week. Apart from the attention which the Board's inspecting officers are necessarily giving to the subject the whole question of braking appliances on tramways is being investigated by Committees of the Tramways and Light Railways Association and the Municipal Tramways Association, and, as I have already informed the House, the Board are prepared to assist these Committees in a conbined investigation at a later stage. I know of no such promise as that to which the hon. Member refers at the end of his Question.
    MR. FELL: In answer to a Question I put some months ago did not the right hon. Gentleman say that until a satisfactory brake had been adopted further provisional orders for tramcars on steep gradients would not be granted?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not remember, but if the hon Member can give me the date I will look into the matter.

    Canadian Railways.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information in his Department with regard to Canadian Railways; whether any of the railways in Canada are owned and worked by the Government; and, if so, whether he can state how the profits earned on these Government railways compare with the profits earned on railways built and managed by companies.
    MR. LLOYD GEORGE: The Canadian official documents show that there were 21,355 miles of railway open for traffic at the 30th June, 1906, and that of this total 1,713 miles were owned and controlled by the Government, viz, the Inter-Colonial and Prince Edward Island lines, besides the Windsor Branch line thirty-two miles long which is leased by them to a private company. The proportion of working expenses to receipts in the case of the 1,713 miles of lines controlled by the Government in the year 1905–6 appears to be over 99 per cent., and in the case of the 19,640 miles of lines controlled by private companies, which include the Canadian Pacific, Grand Trunk, and other lines, the proportion is about 67½ per cent. It will be obvious from the enumeration of the lines owned and the parts of the country served by the Government and private companies respectively that the comparison is not a fair one.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: Is it not the fact that the Canadian State lines fail to pay because they follow the All-Red Route, the longest route, while private commercial companies have secured the shortest and best paying route?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    London Motor Bus Companies.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received from the shareholders' committee of the four Motor Bus Companies, Limited, promoted by the British Motor Bus Trust, any request that the affairs of these companies should be reported on

    327
    by the Board of Trade; if he is aware that 8,000 shareholders, most of whom were clerks and working men, subscribed the capital of the four companies; and whether, seeing the difficulties of this class of small shareholders combining to take action, he will accede to the request of the shareholders' committee to hold this investigation.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, Sir, I have received a request from the chairman of the shareholders' committee of the four Motor Bus Companies asking the Board of Trade to order an investigation into the doings of the directors in these companies. The Board of Trade have no such general powers of investigation and their powers are limited to the express powers conferred by Statute. Under Section 56 of the Companies Act, 1862, the Board of Trade have, under the circumstances there set out, power to appoint an inspector, and an investigation is made by the Official Receiver in the case of all companies ordered by the Court to be wound-up. I am not aware that most of the shareholders were as stated in the question clerks and working men.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a letter, dated 12th June, from Messrs. Wood-thorpe, Bevan, and Company, auditors of the Motor Bus Company, Limited, addressed to the secretary of this company, stating that as their name appeared on the prospectus issued to the public, they had the strongest possible objection to the company passing into liquidation until its accounts had been audited in compliance with the provisions designed by the Legislature; and if he will at once call the attention of the company to this evasion of the Act, and, failing a satisactory reply, will he direct proceedings to be taken against the directors under the power contained in the Companies Act.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My attention has been called to two letters dated the 8th May and 12th June respectively addressed by Messrs Woodthorpe, Bevan and Company to the secretary of the Motos Bus Company, Limited, and published in the Press. In this case
    328
    again the powers of the Board of Trade are strictly limited by Statute, the only power vested in the Board of Trade being that in Section 21 of the Companies Act, 1900, under which, if an appointment of an auditor is not made at an annual general meeting, the Board of Trade may on the application of any member of the company appoint an auditor of the company for the current year.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on 21st December, 1906, a meeting of 700 to 800 shareholders in the London Motor Omnibus Company, Limited, of which A. T. Salisbury Jones, is chairman, was held at the King's Hall, Holborn; that the meeting, with a few dissentients, opposed an amalgamation scheme proposed by the chairman on the ground that he refused to give the shareholders any accounts of the company's trading or of another of his motor companies with which he proposed to amalgamate this company; and whether, seeing the directors outvoted the shareholders with promoter shares, he will say whether he will bring in an Amendment to the Companies Act of 1900 to compel directors to give every information to shareholders who find money to carry on public companies.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not aware of what took place at the meeting held on the 21st December, 1906, apart from the information which is contained in the letter addressed to me by the chairman of the shareholders committee of the four Motor Bus Companies. As to the second part of the Question, one of the principal objects aimed at by the Companies Bill now before the House is to secure the fullest information to shareholders.
    MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the directors of the Motor Bus Company, Limited, have refused to allow the auditors, Messrs. Woodthorpe, Bevan and Company, despite their protests and those of the shareholders, to audit the accounts and wind up the company, he proposes, under Section 21 of the Companies Act of 1900, to appoint an auditor to deal with the accounts of this company.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: An application has been made to the Board of Trade to appoint an auditor in the case of the London Motor Omnibus Company, Limited, and an inquiry has been addressed to the applicant in order to ascertain whether the powers of the Board of Trade to appoint an auditor have yet arisen.

    Australasian Mail Service.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he has yet made any arrangements for the establishment of an all-British mail service to Australasia and the East; and will he state the position of the negotiations with this object in view.
    CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.; for Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): The hon. Member is, of course, aware, that under the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company an all-British mail service to the East already exists. I am not in a position to make any statement in regard to any further arrangement.

    Select Committee on the Post Office Wages.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster - General with reference to the Report of the Select Committee on Post Office Wages which recommends that London postman's wages should range from £49 to £91 a year, whether he is aware that the Berlin postmen's wages range from £63 to £93 a year; and whether, in view of the fact that German wages generally are lower than British wages, he will level up British postmen's wages to a proper standard.
    I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been directed to the fact that, although the London postal porters maximum wages of 30s. per week have not been increased since 1882, or during a period of rather more than 25 years, the Report of the Select Committee on Post Office Wages does not recommend that an increase in that maximum should now be made, while it states that its recommendations are sufficient for a considerable period; and whether, in view of the increased cost of living and the consequent real decrease in wages sustained by the postal porters, he can see his way to increase the maximum to at least £100 a year.
    CAPTAIN NORTON (for Mr. BUXTON): As my right hon. friend already informed the hon. Member the recommendations of the Select Committee will receive the most careful consideration.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Am I to have any reply to my Questions or shall I repeat them on a future day?
    CAPTAIN NORTON: With reference to the wage question the Postmaster-General is not aware if the hon. Member's statement is correct. The Postmaster-General is solely responsible for dealing with the recommendations of the Committee.

    Royston School Teacher.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, when the Papers dealing with the appointment of a school teacher at Royston will be in the hands of Members.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. McKENNA,): I understand these Papers will be delivered to-day.

    East St. Pancras School.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that some of the London County Council schools in East St. Pancras are dangerous, unhealthy, and overcrowded; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that four weeks ago a portion of the ceilings of one of the class-rooms of a building in Werrington Street, used by the senior girls of the Stanley School, fell, injuring some of the children, and one little girl, Harriet Fryer of 41, Barclay Street is still seriously ill from the effects; that the shock received by this child has been so serious that the doctor in attendance says the illness may develop into St. Vitus's Dance; that, in spite of requests, no medical care or attention by the London County Council authorities has been given; and what steps does he propose taking to ensure this child and its mother receiving compensation.
    MR. McKENNA: I have no information as to the incidents referred to. If any liability to pay compensation exists, as to which I express no opinion, it will be a matter for the London County

    331
    Council in the first instance, and in any case it is not one in which the Board of Education have any jurisdiction.
    MR. LEA: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct somebody in his Department to inquire if the London County Council is responsible?
    MR. McKENNA: I think application should be made direct to the Londou County Council.

    Merionethshire Education Dispute.
    MR. LANE-FOX: On behalf of the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has yet received any reply from the Merionethshire local education authority with respect to the payment of the salaries of the teachers of non-provided schools; and, if so, what is the substance of such reply.
    MR. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, the local authority have informed the Board of Education that they fully recognise the inconvenience caused to the teachers in the voluntary schools by the delay in the payment of the salaries, and that the grants received in respect of such schools have all been expended upon their maintenance, but, inasmuch as they have decided that public rates are only to be utilised in maintaining those schools over which they exercise full control, they regret they are not in a position to pay the salaries which fell due on June 30th; but I am informed that a further communication from the council will reach me to-day.
    MR. LANE-FOX: In the event of an unsatisfactory answer being still given, will the right hon. Gentleman take proceedings to see that these teachers receive their full salaries?
    MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman been informed that as a matter of fact every salary of every teacher in the twenty-one non-provided schools in Merionethshire has been paid?
    MR. McKENNA: I have no information of that kind, but I have no reason to suppose it is not true. In reply to the
    332
    hon. Gentleman opposite, I can only repeat what I said the other afternoon. Until the salaries have been paid by the managers who are primarily responsible I have no liberty under the Defaulting Authorities Act to consider the question whether I should put the Act in force.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman persist in saying he will not send a circular to the managers advising them that the Government will see them through if the salaries are paid?
    MR. McKENNA: As I read the Act of Parliament I have no authority to take the course suggested. I cannot guarantee to pay public money except under statutory authority.
    LORD BALCARRES: In the letter which he received this morning from the authority, was the right hon. Gentleman informed that the salaries have all been paid?
    MR. McKENNA: No; had I been so informed I should have been able to give a different reply to my hon. friend.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who paid these salaries?
    MR. McKENNA: If I had had the information I should have been able to give it my hon. friend.

    Grants for Secondary Schools.
    MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Government Grant to English secondary schools is £5 per head of the scholars over twelve years of age, and a grant per head of the scholars below that age equivalent in amount to what it would have been if they had remained in the elementary schools; that the grant to Welsh secondary schools is confined to the four years course, and is apportioned as follows:—First year, 75s.; second year, 85s.; third year, 95s.; fourth year, 100s.; whether the restriction as to the four years course has been removed in the case of English Secondary schools and applies now only to those of Wales;

    333
    whether restrictions as to the division of time amongst the various subjects have been removed from the English regulations, while they have been retained in Welsh regulations; and, if so, will he say why these distinctions, all of which are to the disadvantage of the Welsh as compared with the English secondary schools, have been made or retained; and whether he can hold out any hope that they shall be forthwith removed.
    MR. McKENNA: My hon. friend is mistaken in his statement of the grants to English Secondary Schools. While it is true that in certain of those schools the grant will be £5 per head of the scholars over twelve, and a grant of £2 per head will be paid on some of the scholars between ten and twelve years of age, in other schools the grant will be, only 50s., with no grant for scholars under twelve. My hon. friend has correctly stated the scale of grants for the Welsh Secondary Schools, but it must be noted that, except two, all of the Welsh Schools will be paid on the scale he names. He will observe that the Welsh scale is intermediate between the two English scales, and in the actual working out of the figures on the respective scales it will be found that the total contribution to Wales out of the new money granted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is exactly the same proportion of the sum paid to England as has been paid in the last three years. The restriction as to a four years course has not been removed, but with a view to next year's regulations the Department is carefully considering whether having regard to the different conditions prevailing in Wales the restriction can be removed without detriment to Welsh education. With regard to the division of time amongst the various subjects, my hon. friend appears to have overlooked Article 6 of the Welsh regulations, which provides for the modification of the ordinary curriculum where necessary.
    MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: May I ask if a differentiation in the grant has been made for the first time this year between Welsh and English secondary schools, and were the head officials of the Welsh Department of the Board of Education consulted before the differentiation was made?
    MR. McKENNA: Certainly. My hon friend must understand that the English regulations differentiate between two types of schools in England, whereas in Wales with the exception of two schools they are all of one type. Had Wales been united with England in this matter the Welsh schools would not have been able to get the higher rate of grant.

    Inspections of Welsh Intermediate Schools.
    MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is in a position to say if the difficulties which have arisen with reference to the dual inspection of intermediate schools in Wales have now been overcome; and, if so, what is the nature of the arrangement which has been come to between the Board of Education and the Central Welsh Board.
    MR. McKENNA: The Board of Education's Chief Inspector in Wales and the Chief Inspector of the Central Welsh Board are now conferring with a view to arriving at a working arrangement to overcome the difficulties referred to.
    MR. LLEWELLYN WILLIAMS: When will the arrangement be completed? I asked this Question fully a month ago and got precisely the same Answer.
    MR. McKENNA: No one is more anxious than I am to complete it.
    MR. REES: Is there not a strong feeling in Wales that it should be arranged at the earliest possible moment?
    MR. McKENNA: Yes, and I fully share that view.

    Palmistry in Scotland.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the increase of palmistry and crystal-gazing in Scotland; and will he explain why so few prosecutions for this offence have taken place under his jurisdiction. May I say that this Question has been so much altered since I handed it in that I think the proper form of putting it is to say—"The Junior Clerk at the Table and I beg to ask Question 36."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): My attention has not been called to these practices. As the law stands they are not per se criminal offences. I see no reason to suppose that there has been any remissness on the part of the Procurators Fiscal or other authorities.

    Scottish Churches Commission.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what amount of capital funds was entrusted for allocation to the Commissioners under The Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905; what sums have now been allocated to the Free Church and the United Free Church, respectively; and what amount remains unallocated.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The evidence given before the Royal Commission showed the total of all the funds of the undivided Church to be £1,618,000. I am informed that subject to the addition of certain legacies which were not then available, this is believed to be correct. The Commissioners are not at this moment in a position to give a final and specific statement of amounts under the several heads of allocation; but for the convenience of those interested, they have, in their Memoranda on this subject, closely followed the arrangement of the Abstract of Funds quoted in the Report of the Royal Commission, and a comparison of these documents will give the information required as accurately as is as yet practicable.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: Do the Government intend to take any action to prevent the improper allocation of the money?
    MR. SINCLAIR: That is a matter clearly within the discretion of the Royal Commission, with whose action the Government has no power to interfere at this stage.
    MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, by a Memorandum dated 26th July, the Churches (Scotland) Act Commission has from capital funds subscribed for definite purposes allocated to the Free Church a lump sum of £250,000 for the support of the ministry,
    336
    for itinerant preachers, and for administration, and that, to prevent the Church from being unduly fettered in its detailed distribution and management, this fund has been allocated without any restriction to the trust purposes for which it was originally subscribed; and whether, in view of this diversion of trust funds, he proposes to take any action.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am acquainted with the terms of the Memorandum referred to by my hon. friend, but since the Commission have acted on the responsibility imposed on them by the Act of 1905, I am not prepared to take any action.
    MR. GULLAND: How will it be secured that the money is applied to the purposes for which it has been allocated if there are no restrictions as to its distribution?
    MR. SINCLAIR: That is a matter for the Royal Commission at present.

    Fermanagh Agricultural Show.
    MR. C. MACVEIGH: On behalf of the Member for South Down I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will state what amount the Department contribute to the Fermanagh annual agricultural show; to whom is the paying order issued; who are respectively the manager, the treasurer, and the secretary of the show; what remuneration do they receive; and, seeing that this show receives a grant from public funds, will the Vice-President insist that the accounts are annually audited and that a statement of the financial position is published for the information of the public.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Department do not make a direct grant in aid of the show held by the Fermanagh Farming Society, but the Fermanagh County Committee of Agriculture have this year out of the funds at their disposal contributed a sum of £106 towards the prize fund of the society in accordance with the conditions of the scheme of subsidies to agricultural shows. The proportion of this amount for which the Department will be liable to the county committee is £59. The

    337
    paying order for this amount of £106 will be issued by the committee presumably to the treasurer of the society. The show is managed by a committee. The honorary secretary of the society is Sir Douglas Brooke, and the acting secretary is Mr. Robert W. Wilson, who presumably is authorised to act as treasurer. In the financial transactions for 1906, as audited, a sum of £20 appears to have been paid as salary to the secretary. The accounts of the society are audited each year and a copy is submitted to the Department through the County Committee of Agriculture. It is a matter for consideration by the County Committee of Agriculture concerned whether they will publish the information which they obtain in regard to the financial position of each society receiving a grant from the joint fund available for subsidies to shows.

    Grangemellon Evicted Tenant.
    MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners received an application for reinstatement from Andrew Farrell, who was evicted by Sir Anthony Weldon from his holding at Grangemellon, county Kildare, about eleven years ago; are the Estates Commissioners aware that Sir Anthony Weldon is in possession of 200 acres of grass land at Grangemellon; have they made inquiry whether he is willing to sell this land; and whether he can say what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to reinstate Andrew Farrell or provide him with a holding.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Estates Commissioners have received from Andrew Farrell an application for reinstatement in a holding which is occupied by another tenant. The Commissioners will consider the application upon the distribution of any untenanted land which they may acquire. Sir Anthony Weldon has informed the Commissioners that he has no untenanted land, except that which belongs to his demesne, and which he has no intention of selling.

    Derry Workhouse.
    MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been
    338
    called to the action taken by the Local Government Board relative to a complaint made by Nurse Geddes, of the Derry workhouse infimary, respecting the visit of Mr. and Mrs. Morris, both guardians of the union, to see a patient in the infirmary on the 28th April last; whether the Local Government Board, without asking for an explanation from the guardians in question or making any inquiry into the allegations made against them, but merely acting upon the unsupported statement of Nurse Geddes, wrote a letter, dated 17th May, to the board of guardians condemning the action of Mr. and Mrs. Morris as being most injudicious and calculated to affect seriously the chances of the patient's recovery; and if, having regard to the injury to the personal and public reputation of Mr. and Mrs. Morris in consequence of the charges and by the public censure involved in the letter of the Local Government Board, he will direct a full inquiry, if necessary upon oath, into all the circumstances connected with this matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: In this case the nurse in charge of the infirmary ward complained that Mr. and Mrs. Morris visited the ward after visiting hours, and, despite her protests, insisted on speaking to a patient who was in a critical condition, with the result that the patient became much excited and was for a time seriously affected. The nurse's report came before the guardians who, upon a motion seconded by Mrs. Morris herself, requested the Local Government Board to take such action in the matter as they deemed right. The Board replied in the terms indicated in the Question. As regards the concluding part of the Question the Board wrote to Mr. Morris on 3rd June last, asking if he was prepared to deny the accuracy of certain statements made in the nurses report, but he has never done so. If, however, he is prepared to do so, the Board will hold an inquiry on oath into the matter.

    Athenry Constable's Pension.
    MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what provision has been made, in addition to his ordinary pension as a constable, for Constable O'Halloran, Royal Irish Constabulary, who was, in October last, shot and severely wounded near

    339
    Athenry, county Galway, while protecting the house of Colonel Lopdell; was Constable O'Halloran near his promotion to the rank of acting-sergeant; and has the loss of promotion been considered in determining the provision to be made for him.
    MR. BIRRELL: The amount of the pension to be awarded to the constable has not yet been decided; the matter is at present under consideration.

    Margison Estate, Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say why it is that the vesting orders have been so long withheld from the tenants on the Margison property around Oola, county Limerick, and Cullen, county Tipperary, inasmuch as the arrangements for sale and purchase were concluded, and articles signed, between the owners and the tenants as far back as April, 1905.
    MR. BIRRELL: The purchase agreements relating to this estate were lodged in August, 1905. The case has not yet reached its turn to be dealt with in order of priority.

    Mr. Reddy, M.P.—Removal from the Commission of the Peace.
    MR. MOONEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Waterford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the hon. Member for the Birr Division of King's County has been removed from the commission of the peace for a speech alleged to have been delivered by him at Kilchreest, without being asked to give an explanation of the speech; whether it is the usual practice of the Lord Chancellor to ask for explanations of any alleged misconduct; and whether the hon. Member for the Birr Division will be treated in the ordinary way, and be heard in his own defence.
    MR. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir. The Lord Chancellor has superseded the hon. Member for the Birr Division in the Commission of the Peace. Some two months ago the Lord Chancellor had occasion to warn the hon. Member that as a magistrate he was bound to be specially careful to avoid the use of language that could in any way be construed
    340
    as an incitement to a breach of the law. Notwithstanding this warning the hon. Member delivered a speech at Kilchreest on 21st July, in which he advised his hearers—not once or twice, but repeatedly—to drive the cattle off the grazing lands. The Lord Chancellor had a verbatim report of the speech before him, and therefore did not consider it necessary to call on the hon. Member for an explanation. The speech throughout was of such a character as to admit of no satisfactory explanation.
    MR. MOONEY: Is it not the usual practice in such a case to forward a copy of the speech to the person who is alleged to have made it and to ask whether he admits the authenticity of the report, and is it not a fact that in this case the report upon which the Lord Chancellor acted was of the usual official police type—a type that has not often been acted upon in Ireland?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have read the speech of the hon. Member myself from the shorthand writer's report which is a verbation report of the speech, and I quite agree that he should have been communicated with if the question rested on any particular passage, or any particular paragraph, but the fact is that the whole speech was of such a character—that not one paragraph merely was of the kind complained of, but a great number.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask who was the person who made the report—was it an ordinary police reporter?
    MR. BIRRELL: He was a police reporter qualified to take down a speech in shorthand.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that juries in Ireland have repeatedly refused to act upon such reports of speeches after counsel had tested them showing that they were not reliable reports?
    MR. BIRRELL: This, let me remind the hon. Member, is not a case of criminal prosecution. It is simply a question which is at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor—whether a person who made a speech of this sort is a proper person to be in the Commission of the Peace, and I

    341
    am quite sure that if the hon. Member read the speech he would be satisfied that the hon. Member for the Birr Division was in the light of it in a position of not being qualified.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it not of the essence of the case that the Lord Chancellor should be satisfied that the person who supplied the report was competent to give a correct report of the speech?
    [No answer was returned.]
    MR. MOORE: As I understand it now the hon. Member is going to run away from what he said in the speech referred to.

    Royal Irish Constabulary—Commission of Inquiry in 1901.
    MR. MYER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in view of the disaffection in the Royal Irish Constabulary, why no action was taken to give effect to the recommendations, under the second heading, of the Viceregal Committee of Inquiry appointed in 1901.
    MR. BIRRELL: My hon. friend is under a misapprehension. The recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry of 1901, under the second heading, namely, those not entailing legislation, have been carried into effect at a cost of £21,000 per annum.

    Mr. Justice Dodd.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many Land Commission appeals have been decided by the Hon. Mr. Justice Dodd since his appointment in February last; on how many days between his appointment and 1st August, 1907, has he sat as a Judge of the High Court for the King's Bench Division; did he go on circuit as a King's Bench Judge; what provision was made for the disposal of the appeals in the Land Commission during his absence from Land Commission duty; and is Mr. Justice Dodd at present vacation Judge and also Judge at the Commission at Green Street for the trial of criminal cases.
    MR. BIRRELL: Mr. Justice Dodd has sat in twelve different counties and
    342
    heard 372 Land Commission appeals, but the number of cases actually disposed of was very much larger, many cases having been settled or withdrawn in Court. Up to 1st instant, the learned Judge had sat in the King's Bench Division on twenty-two days. He also went on circuit as Judge of Assize. While he was so occupied, the duty of hearing appeals was discharged by Mr. Justice Wylie and Mr. Justice Fitzgerald. Mr. Justice Dodd is at present the vacation Judge, and he will also preside at the Commission at Green Street for trial of criminal cases. These duties fall to him in consequence of his appointment as a Judge of the High Court.

    Labourers' Cottages—Advances in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the total amount advanced from the Land Purchase Fund to rural district councils for the provision of cottages and allotments under the Labourers Act of 1906 up to the 30th June last.
    MR. BIRRELL: The total amount is £79,915.

    Exchequer Contributions to Irish Land Purchases.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will specify the Irish counties which, at 31st March last, had to their credit unexpended balances of the shares payable to those counties before the commencement of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, out of the residue of the Exchequer contribution under The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the respective amounts so credited.
    MR. BIRRELL: Armagh, £4,418; Down, £3,264; Galway, £5,131; Mayo, £9,553; Sligo. £2,933.

    Nationalist Excursions on the River Blackwater.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that annoyance is being caused to Protestant residents along the River Blackwater, from Charlemont to Lough Neagh, by Nationalists who take part in river excursions on

    343
    Sundays, and who, when passing through Protestant districts, behave in a threatening and provocative manner; whether he is aware that similar conduct last year provoked a disturbance, and the police undertook to prevent Nationalist excursionists giving offence in future; and whether, in view of the recent renewal of the practices complained of and the danger of a breach of the peace resulting therefrom, he will take action to prevent these exhibitions.
    MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that on Sunday, 28th July, an excursion party was returning by steamer along the River Blackwater, when the band played Party tunes, and some of the persons on board shouted when passing through localities inhabited by the opposite party. Provocative conduct of this kind, from whichever side it may come, is much to be deprecated. It is the fact that similar conduct last year led to a disturbance. The police have no power to prevent excursions on the river, but they will use all possible efforts to preserve the peace, and will prosecute if offences should be committed. They will also use any influence they may possess with the leaders of the excursion parties in order that they may prevent any unruly followers from giving offence.

    Lord Ardilaun's Herbert Estate.
    MR. JOHN MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will request the Estates Commissioners to induce Lord Ardilaun to sell the portion of the Herbert Estate in his possession to the occupying tenants, so that they may derive the benefits already secured by the other tenants of the larger portion of the estate which has already been sold to the tenants.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that this is not a case in which their intervention is possible. Under the regulations of 13th February, 1906, their action as conciliators is confined to cases in which differences exist between landlord and tenant in connection with the terms of sale and purchase. It does not appear that any negotiations for purchase are pending in this case.
    In reply to a further question by Mr. MURPHY—
    MR. BIRRELLsaid that compulsion to sell was out of the question.

    Kenmare Estate, Kerry.
    MR. JOHN MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the tenants on the Kenmare estate, county Kerry, have signed an agreement, one of the conditions of which is that a sale of the congested portions of the estate should take place through the Congested Districts Board, he will request the Board to make inquiries as to this sale in the county of Kerry without further delay.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have received suggestions from the solicitor acting for the tenants on the Kenmare estate, and these will be considered by the Board at their next meeting. The estate has not been offered for sale to the Board.

    Irish Evicted Tenants.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the evicted tenants proposed to be reinstated on farms under the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill are approximately of the average age of sixty-five years; and, if so, if he will consider the advisability of arranging that such tenants shall be pensioned off at a cost of less than half the £2,000,000, the estimated cost of their reinstatement.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have already informed the hon. Member that I have no information which would enable an estimate to be made of the average age of the evicted tenants whom it is proposed to restore. I would, however, add that many of the applicants are the sons or other representatives of deceased evicted tenants. The Answer to the latter part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the suggestion that the reinstatement of evicted tenants will cost £2,000,000, I would remind the hon. Member that the amounts to be advanced to enable reinstated tenants to purchase holdings will be repayable in the form of annuities.

    Ballyquinton Point, County Down.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Lights Commissioners have decided to light Ballyquinton Point,

    345
    county Down; and, if so, when the work will be commenced.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that they have not decided to light Ballyquinton Point.

    Public Accounts Committee's Report.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what is the date of the day for the discussion of the Report from the Public Accounts Committee; and will the whole of the day be allocated for that purpose as promised.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I have repeatedly said that this date cannot be fixed until quite close to the end of the session, and there has been no promise of a whole day.
    MR. LEA: I have put sixteen Questions lately to the Secretary for War which have not been answered because the matter arises on this Report. Is the light hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence taken by that Committee is not yet in the hands of the Members.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not responsible for that, but it is an additional reason for postponing the consideration of the Report.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The evidence will be circulated next week.

    Scottish Deputy-Lieutenancies.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that deputy-lieutenancies of counties in Scotland, which positions are given as rewards for distinguished public services, are largely given to members of one political party; whether this is due to the absence of suitable men in the other political parties; and, if not, will he see that pressure is brought to bear on lords-lieutenant to appoint men without consideration of party, or will he bring in legislation depriving them of these important appointments.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware that deputy-lieutenancies are regarded as rewards for distinguished
    346
    public services. They are selected by the lord-lieutenant, whose discretion in the matter is virtually absolute. I am afraid I have no means of bringing pressure to bear on lords-lieutenant even if I wished to exercise it, and I think we have many other and more important subjects requiring legislation. Under the new territorial system, however, it may be desirable to alter the qualification, and military services may be recognised in the appointments. This matter is under consideration.

    Winter Sessions of Parliament.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, is it intended next session to propose an early adjournment followed by an autumn or winter session, in accordance with evidence gathered a year ago from Members of the House.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can make no announcement on this subject.

    Belfast Labour Disputes.
    MR. CURRAN: I desire to put the Question which I submitted in accordance with private notice yesterday to the Secretary of State for War, but to which, owing to the right hon. Gentleman's absence, I did not obtain an answer. It is whether he is aware that a large number of military troops were turned out yesterday morning to parade the streets of Belfast on picket duty with fixed bayonets and that each man was supplied with twenty rounds of ball cartridge; and whether he will use his influence to put a stop to this display of military, which only tends to render abortive all attempts to bring the dispute to a peaceful conclusion.
    MR. HALDANE: I am not sure that the hon. Member quite realises where the responsibility rests for dealing with a situation of this nature. By the law of the country, everyone is bound to aid in the suppression of riotous assemblages, and it is the duty of the civil authorities to regulate the force employed in proportion to the danger to be apprehended. At Belfast the situation has been judged sufficiently serious to call for military intervention, and the military authorities have complied, as they are by law bound to comply, with the requisition of the

    347
    civil power. I may add that the composition and the duties of the force have been settled in consultation between the General Officer Commanding and the Irish Government, and I have every confidence that the orders issued to the troops are such as are demanded by the necessity of maintaining civil order.
    MR. CURRAN: I desire to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in addition to their endeavours to maintain law and order the troops were being used as private employees of the Belfast railway and shipping companies?
    MR. HALDANE: I am not aware of that. It is the duty of these troops to give such assistance as is strictly necessary to the civil authorities to maintain law and order.
    MR. CURRAN: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that through the presence of such a large force of military the Trade Disputes Act is rendered absolutely inoperative in Belfast, and so far as peaceful picketing is concerned it is absolutely hopeless under the present condition of martial law?
    MR. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the action of the Irish executive in Belfast has the confidence of three-quarters or the majority of the inhabitants of the city?
    MR. CURRAN: May I now, Mr. Speaker, put the same question which I have put to the Secretary for War to the Chief Secretary for Ireland?
    MR. BIRRELL: This is what may be called a change of venue, and I think I should like the hon. Member to repeat his question at a later date.
    MR. CURRAN: May I ask the Chief Secretary my last question, viz., whether he was aware that the Trade Disputes Act is being rendered absolutely inoperative by the presence of these troops and that peaceful picketing is an impossibility?
    MR. BIRRELL: That is contrary to the information I have received. The hon. Member was kind enough a little while ago to put the question to me, and
    348
    I telegraphed to Belfast for information on the point. The reply I received was that nothing could be more contrary to the wish of anyone than that the soldiers should prevent peaceful picketing. I only know of one instance which has occurred, where a Highlander is alleged to have assaulted a person answering to the description of a peaceful picketer. This was being made the subject of special inquiry. There is nothing further from the intention of the civil authorities in Belfast—so far as I can speak for them, but I must decline to hold myself responsible for them—I say there is nothing further from the intention of the civil authorities in Belfast than that peaceful picketing should be prevented. It is the desire of the military authorities that the troops should be withdrawn as speedily as possible, and as soon as is consistent with law and order in the city. The civil authorities cannot give Belfast over entirely to the strikers, there are other persons to be considered, and I assure the hon. Member that this strike presses heavily upon them. No one has the faintest desire that the dispute shall be maintained a day longer than is necessary, but in the opinion of the authorities there were grave circumstances which rendered it necessary that the military should be in the city owing to the disaffection among the police. That disaffection, however, has now been happily removed, and the police have returned to duty and are behaving in an admirable manner. I hope before long it will be possible to remove the military.
    MR. SHACKLETON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Robert Graham was assaulted by P.C. 588, and N. Bennett by P.C. 459, and John Gwynn by Sergt. 39, and others—men who were peacefully picketing, and whether he is aware that from information that comes to hand to-day the moment a man gets near a wagon he is seized by the police, batoned by them, and unable to have an opportunity of peacefully saying a word to any men taking the places of other workmen, and whether he will make inquiries into these facts?
    MR. BIRRELL: If the hon. Member can give me the numbers I will make inquiry, but the information I may say is contrary to what I have received.
    MR. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the information from Belfast that these men who claim to be peaceful picketers are all armed with heavy bludgeons?
    MR. GRAYSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is interpreting the spirit or the letter of the Trade Disputes Act, to make it absolutely impossible for pickets to approach men who are acting as blacklegs?
    MR. BIRRELL: I decline to make myself responsible for the civil authorities at Belfast, who are doing their best under very difficult circumstances, and under pressure from the citizens to maintain order. If any information is provided I will communicate with a view to ascertaining the actual facts.
    MR. GRAYSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the section of the citizens who brought this pressure to bear are the Employers' Protection Association, and the firms immediately concerned, and that the military are being employed even against the wishes of the employers who desire to submit the matter to arbitration? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to sanction the continuance of this military force in Belfast under the circumstances that the employers would agree to arbitration?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have no power to remove the military from Belfast if the civil authorities wish them to remain there.
    MR. CLYNES: Have the military authorities in supplying troops taken into consideration the enormous advantage they are giving to the employers?
    MR. HALDANE: The duty of the military authorities is to assist the local authorities when they are properly' called on to enforce the law. They are only obeying the law in doing it.
    MR. O'GRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the military are being used as workmen in the interests of the employers, and will he put a stop to it?
    MR. HALDANE: I do not admit they are being used as workmen. When you are dealing with a great riot of this kind you naturally avoid using weapons of offence beyond what is more than necessary. No doubt the soldiers associate themselves with civilian methods, but that they have been acting as workmen I do not believe.
    MR. GRAYSON: Is it proper for the soldiers to fix their bayonets when there is no sign of a riot?
    MR. HALDANE: I will consider a concrete case when it comes up.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the admitted inconvenience caused to Members of the House by the fact that recently they had been unable to learn till late in the evening of the same day what business would be taken after the conclusion of business for which time had been allotted, he would endeavour to give a full day's notice of such business, or would at least make a statement at Question time each day giving the required information.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMANthought that it would be better to adhere to the usual custom of allowing the business to be determined by consultation in the course of the sitting. It would be more convenient to the House generally that the business after 11 o'clock should be mutually arranged between the Government and the Opposition through the customary channels. An endeavour was thus made, and would continue to be made, to meet the wishes and the convenience of hon. Members. It was very difficult to make these arrangements early in the day.
  MR. SHACKLETONput in a claim that other sections besides the Opposition should be consulted before any definite decision was come to.
  MR. WALTER LONGasked as to the course of business for the next few days.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that arrangements had been made

  351
  which would obviate a sitting on Saturday. To-morrow the first business would be the Third Reading of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, and afterwards the adjourned debate for the allocation of time in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill. This would be finished at half-past five o'clock, and then a short time—two or three hours—would be given to a discussion of the Patents and Designs Bill. On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill would be taken, on Thursday the Second Beading of the Appropriation Bill, and on Friday the Third Reading of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill. He could assure the hon. Member for the Clitheroe Division there was no desire to conceal from any section of the House the nature of the business to be taken.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsuggested that after an arrangement of business had been made by agreement with all sections of the House further alterations might be indicated on a board in the lobby.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That would be a very good idea.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman still of opinion that Parliament will be prorogued on 24th August?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the hon. Member will tell me what is likely to happen here as well as elsewhere I can answer his Question.

  LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 291.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 291.]
  Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 306.]

  TRANSVAAL LOAN [GUARANTEE].
  Committee to consider of authorising the Treasury to guarantee, on the security of the Consolidated Fund, the interest of a loan to be raised by the Colony of the Transvaal, and the principal of any such Loan by means of the guarantee of Sinking Fund payments (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  HOME WORK.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed].
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 290.]

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
  MR. STARKEYsaid that in Committee upstairs the Secretary for Scotland promised to make some concessions in regard to Clause 16, but he regretted that these concessions, as they appeared on the Paper, did not altogether cover the difficulty. The clause dealt with a holding becoming vacant when the landlord might under certain conditions—
  "be entitled without the consent of the Agricultural Commissioners to let the holding otherwise than to a neighbouring landhol'er for the enlargement of his holding or to a new holder."
  The effect of tie Amendment standing in his name was to prevent the land going out of cultivation. It was a very reasonable and modest Amendment. It suggested that if a holding became vacant and the landlord was unable to find a new tenant and acquainted the Agricultural Commissioners with the fact, and if the Agricultural Commissioners were unable to find a tenant or were unwilling to cultivate the land themselves, then the land should return to the landlord to do with it what he thought best. He believed that that was the best way out of the difficulty. They were told that the Agricultural Commissioners were reasonable people, but

  353
  why should unreasonable powers be given to them in this matter? If they had powers which it was extremely improbable they would exercise, and if they would never insist on a holding being unoccupied and allowed to go out of cultivation, the landlord being paid compensation for his loss, it was surely better that the Agricultural Commissioners should not have those powers at all. This clause belonged to a future period. At present everybody would be desirous of taking a small holding which should shower golden gifts upon the holder. If any impecunious person could obtain a loan for his holding there would, no doubt, be a great demand among all classes to obtain a share in the benefits that would fall on the small tenants of Scotland. When, however, this particular clause came into effect the small holding would be either given up, or the holder would be dead. The small holding might prove not very remunerative; if it had the holder would have assigned it to somebody else. In these circumstances, why should not the landlord have the land and do the best he could with it? It was an unreasonable proposition that the land should be kept out of cultivation, and that the Agricultural Commissioners should be put in the position of a dog in the manger, because they would not let it themselves nor would they allow the landlord to let it. It should be remembered that the rent was fixed as a fair rent, and if a tenant was not forthcoming it was not because the rent was too high, or that the old tenant had been treated with unfairness, but simply because that particular holding had not been successful. In the event of a large number of small holdings being created, some of them were sure to be not altogether successful on account of distance from markets and the reduction in the value of their produce by cultivation. He thought it should be perfectly impossible for the Agricultural Commissioners to insist on the land going out of cultivation, because that would be a most flaring advertisement to the whole countryside of the dismal failure of the small holdings system. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept what he thought was a most reasonable and moderate
  354
  Amendment, which he now begged to move.
  MR. LANE-FOXseconded the Amendment. This clause in the Bill he thought was the most extraordinary he had ever come across in any Act of Parliament. The power of the landlord in dealing with the holding when it became vacant from any cause was entirely taken away from him. The Government said that the landlord was to be compensated for any loss he might suffer. But there was a good deal more involved here than the landlord's loss. The whole question of the general success of the cultivation of small holdings came in. The main point was what was going to be the effect on the neighbouring small holders in the event of the renunciation, removal, or failure of a small holder. They all knew that when a field was allowed to go out of cultivation, thistles and other weeds spread from it to neighbouring holdings. All that the Amendment asked was that if no tenant was forthcoming and it the Agricultural Commissioners did not desire to cultivate the holding the landlord should have the power to take over the land. The scheme of the Bill was an experiment and there were bound to be a considerable number of failures on account of the want of experience of the men who would rush to take up these small holdings.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  'In page 13, line 34, to leave out from the word 'landlord,' to the word 'Provided,' in page 14, line 3, and to insert the words 'may let the holding to a neighbouring landholder for the enlargement of his holding or to a new holder, but the landlord, if he fails to do so, shall intimate such failure to the Agricultural Commissioners who may, on repaying to the landlord any sum paid by him to the outgoing landholder, let the holding to a new holder at the former fair rent or occupy the holding themselves on the same terms and conditions. In default of notice from the Agricultural Commissioners of their intention to take either of these courses the landlord shall be entitled to resume the holding for such purposes as he deems best.'"—(Mr. Starkey.)
  Question proposed, "That the words shall for hwith intimate the fact' stand part of the Bill."
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)was not at

  355
  all sure whether these exact words would commend themselves to the House, but he was sure that some such provision would be desirable. There were two provisions in the clause, the one positive and the other negative. The difference between the proposal and the clause was that, after information had been laid before the Agricultural Commissioners, they were first of all under the obligation to pay to the landlord any sum due to him from the outgoing tenant, and then they were to let the holding to a new tenant, or occupy the holding themselves. That meant that if the landowner failed to find a new tenant, probably with the co-operation of the Land Commissioners, the Amendment of the hon. Member proposed that the Land Commissioners should be specially empowered to find a new tenant. That was a proposal that the Agricultural Commissioners should have to keep the holding themselves if they failed to find a tenant. The Government in Committee resisted this proposal on the ground that the Agricultural Commissioners were not fitting holders of small holdings. He did not think there could be anything more disastrous than to have the country dotted about with small holdings held by the Agricultural Commissioners. The scheme of the clause was perfectly simple and did not embody a dog in the manger policy in cases of removal, renunciation, or failure in consequence of which the holding became vacant. There was plenty of notice to the landlord and the Agricultural Commissioners to find a new tenant. Where that event happened it was at once communicated to the landlord, and the Agricultural Commissioners were empowered to apply to the landlord to fix the term during which the tenancy should go on. They were both interested in the land and they fixed the term during which an offer should be made by a successor to the tenancy. During the vacant period the landlord was compensated for any damage to his interest which had taken place. They thought they had met all the contingencies which might arise, and they preferred the clause in the shape in which they had framed it.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that as they in the House found themselves in some difficulty in reading the clause all he could say was, "God help the poor landowners," who, unlike themselves, were not accustomed to reading Acts of Parliament. They were told that this Bill was very simple, but it did not appear to them to be so. Hon. Members opposite not having the Bill in their hands received their statements with incredulity, but if they had the measure before them they would see that their account of it was accurate. He would like hon. Members who thought that the Bill would turn the whole of Scotland into a Garden of Eden to read it. The Amendment dealt with the interregnum during which the new tenant must be discovered. If there was much delay, injury would be done to the holding and to those around it. All that his hon. friend proposed was that the landlord should proceed to let the holding in strict conformity with the provisions of this Act. The landlord could not under the Amendment resume the holding for his own purposes, and could only let it to a small holder. Was not that, he asked, a reasonable and practicable proposition? The right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon the words "at or about the time," and said they provided for every contingency; but, notwithstanding everything that had been said about the Scotsmen by their own countrymen, some of them might take the opportunity of vanishing during the night and leaving the neighbourhood. The landowner, however, remained on the spot with his factor and was interested in the farm being occupied at once, and what was suggested was that the landlord should find a successor under the provisions of the Bill. The Government said, however, that they could not allow the landowner to do this, but if his tenant bolted, he must go to the Land Commissioners in Edinburgh. While hon. Members denounced red tape they were going to add to it. There were miles of red tape in this Bill He could not see why the simple proposal of his hon. friend should not be adopted. If it was suggested that the

  357
  landlord should resume his original possession he could understand objection being made, but there was no such suggestion, and he could not see why this proposal should not be adopted to provide for the interregnum which must necessarily elapse between the leaving of one tenant and the arrival of another. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman make some wonderful statements but never any so wonderful as that in which he said the Commissioners were suitable people to spend public money on small holdings, to control and administer other people's land, and be the landlords of a whole body of tenants; but they were not fit, according to the right hon. Gentleman, to be responsible for an individual holding in the interregnum between the departure of one tenant and the incoming of another. That was how the succession was to be provided for in Scotland. In England there were many precedents for this. In England there was already a not altogether dissimilar system. There were vast Crown estates spread all over the country which were managed by Commissioners, who had to deal with these cases as they arose, where a tenant departed or died, and the holding became temporarily vacant. Would anybody describe those Commissioners as not being fit to resume a tenancy? Where there was no tenant sitting they must occupy and cutivate. Had the right hon. Gentleman never heard of farms on the Crown estates being occupied and cultivated in similar circumstances by the Crown Estates Commissioners? These men were perfectly fit to occupy and cultivate these holdings, but that was not what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said they were not fit to take them over. There was no one else to do it, and if these Commissioners were not fit to become temporary occupiers of the land then the land was to go to waste, to deteriorate and grow weeds.
  MR. SINCLAIR: No.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that it was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say no, but if he had had an ounce of agricultural knowledge he would know that such things must arise, that if a tenant went out and there was not another
  358
  tenant to take immediate possession the farm would deteriorate and grow weeds, which would not only do great harm to the farm itself, but also to the neighbouring farm. That state of things was bound to arise if it was not provided against. He denied that the landlord was covered by the compensation clause which followed; for that only dealt with the damage done to the individual holding, not to the damage which might be done to the adjoining property. He predicted that before this Act had been three years on the Statute-book some provision of this kind would have to be made. He was astonished that the Secretary for Scotland had not seen his way to accept this reasonable and practical Amendment, although he confessed he ought not to be astonished after his experience on the Committee. This was, at all events, another instance of the right hon. Gentleman's unwillingness to accept a practicable Amendment.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid the right hon. Gentleman made rather a fierce attack upon him. He had the Rill in his hand, but not apparently in his head. If he looked down the clause he would find that he was mistaken in his main proposition that the clause did not leave the landlord free to let the land. He had to do other things concurrently, but he was perfectly free so soon as a holding ceased or was about to cease to be occupied to take steps for the letting of the holding. Hi-hoped that on reading the clause again the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw part of his criticism. The effect of the words in the Amendment was the same as that of those in the clause, except that in one case they were negative and in the other positive. The landlord would not only be as free to protect his interests under the new system as under the old, but he would have the assistance and co-operation of the Agricultural Commissioners, who would be interested in seeing that no damage was done and that nothing was running to waste. There was no fear of the contingency contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman of a tenant decamping by night, as he could not do that without losing the compensation which he would otherwise be entitled to claim. He therefore contended that the clause carried out, the

  359
  object of the Amendment, and he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that the argument of the Secretary for Scotland depended on the assumption that the present system remained; but the right hon. Gentleman had upset that system. The owner, no doubt, had at present a direct interest in supervising such arrangements as those under consideration; but, so far as he could make out, the owner and his representatives in the future would only have one interest, and that would be in litigation either with the Commissioners or with the tenant. Why should the owner, after he was deprived of the whole power of management and the control of his capital, help, except on philanthropic grounds, to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's scheme? He was bound to say that the clause was absolutely consistent with the Bill, which totally disregarded the maintenance of anything in the nature of responsible management. They knew the difference between an estate properly managed and organised and an estate not properly managed and organised. But the right hon. Gentleman apparently thought that the existing system of management in Scotland, which was kept up at a cost of £250,000 to £300,000 a year, was going to be the instrument to carry out the Bill. He could not rely on that, however, and he had to depend on what he set up in its place—these elaborate provisions which would result in slovenly management, because incapables were to have a kind of hereditary claim on the land, whether owners or occupiers. The land was to be inalienable, and, therefore, the incapable holder could not be got rid of, and they would have two classes, the incapable tenant and the incapable landholder. And there was to be a grant of £65,000 a year in order to carry out the operation of the Bill, and the properly organised land system now existing was to be reduced to chaos. The clause made a change of tenancy as difficult as possible. Before the terms of transfer could be re-adjusted they had to deal with the occupier, to see the owner as to arrears of rent, to see the Land Court or Agricultural Commissioners, and the Small Holdings Commissoner, and all
  360
  these people had to agree what the conditions were to be before the transfer of the tenancy could take place, while the faithful supporters of the Bill could look upon the land lying derelict with equanimity, so long as the provisions of the measure were maintained. It did not matter what happened to the land under this extraordinary system of procedure. The clause might appear simple in the eyes of those who supported it from the reason that they had never been able to look beyond the crofter tenure, which was a very simple thing, no doubt. Because the system of tenure in the crofter districts was simple, it was anticipated that it would be equally simple in the economic, districts of Scotland. In the crofter districts, the crofters did not move about; there were not those changes of tenancy which they would have under this Bill, wherever it succeeded or wherever it failed; and he had no doubt that what was really at the back of the mind of the right hon. Gentleman was this, that because the crofters did not move about in the crofter districts and in the Highlands the experience would be similar under this Bill in other parts of the country. That was where the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. Whether the Bill proved successful or whether it did not, there would be those changes of tenancy constantly going on in the economic districts, and they ought to have the most careful provisions made to meet that condition. Anything which would simplify procedure under the Bill would have his support, and anything which would tend to modify this clause would be of advantage in the working of the Bill when it came into operation.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Secretary for Scotland had stated that there would be no difficulty, because the incoming tenant would arrange with the outgoing tenant in the future as he did now. But suppose there was no incoming tenant. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that altogether; he took it for granted that the incoming tenant was always going to be produced on the spot. The clause pointed out that the Land Court or the Agricultural Commissioners could relet the holding either for the purpose of enlarging a neighbouring holding or as a new holding.

  361
  But, if there were no people who wanted to come under this Act, and the existing landholders did not want to enlarge their neighbouring holdings, what was to happen, for both those eventualities were likely to occur? He did not regard the Bill as likely to encourage agriculture or create a demand for new holdings such as the right hon. Gentleman expected. Legislation should not be based on supposition. Under the existing system the landlord would cultivate the land himself until he found a new tenant, and it was to that the Amendment of his hon. friend was directed. Under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme the landlord was to go first of all to the Agricultural Commissioners, who in turn had to go to the Land Court; then an inquiry was to be held, and the Land Court would determine that the landlord might let the holding. How long was that going to take? It might take four or five months. The seed might not have been put into the ground, and the cultivation of the land might have gone to rack and ruin. "Oh," said the right hon. Gentleman, "compensation under those circumstances will be paid," but it was not clear whether the compensation would be paid only from the date when the Land Court arrived at its determination, or from the date when the holding became vacant. But why run the risk of having to pay compensation? The right hon. Gentleman seemed very anxious to pay compensation to everybody. Why not leave the landlord, if he chose, to cultivate the holding? Why take money out of the pockets of the English taxpayers to provide compensation when there was no necessity for it? The Amendment of his hon. friend was as simple as possible, because he desired that the landlord should be in a position to say to the Agricultural Commissioners: "I cannot find a tenant; the land is not wanted for a new holding, nor is it required to enlarge neighbouring holdings; therefore, I have to farm it myself." That was a statement which could at once be sent into the Agricultural Commissioners, who could reply: "You are not to do it; the whole matter is at an end." What could be simpler than that? It provided for eventualities; it saved money—which, after all, was a Scottish desire, unless it happened to be taken out of other people's
  362
  pockets—and it prevented land from going out of cultivation. His right hon. friend was an expert agriculturist, and he knew perfectly well that if land was left out of cultivation for three months it took seven or eight months to put it right again. Under these circumstances he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid that, as the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had pointed out, the Amendment did give the landlord some opportunity of cultivating the vacant holding and preventing it from deteriorating, but the right hon. Gentleman's own clause said—
  "Where, by reason of renunciation, removal failure of a statutory successor, or otherwise, a holding has at any time ceased," etc.
  What did "or otherwise" mean? Did the words mean an economic failure as well as failure to find a statutory successor? A landlord might be unable to find a holder who wanted the land for the enlargement of his neighbouring holding, or as a new holding, and the object of the Amendment was to enable the landlord to step in and keep the land in cultivation, or, as his hon. friend the Member for the Leith Burghs had said, to put it to some other useful purpose. Of course, as the same hon. Member had put it, the right hon. Gentleman was so enamoured of his Bill that he could not see any possibility of failure. But practical agriculturists saw such a possibility. They knew that some times the best farms went out of cultivation for all sorts of reasons, which also might make the small holding a failure. And if any of these small holdings became a failure, it was absolutely necessary for the sake of agriculture that something should be done to keep the land in good condition. Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to see derelict farms dotted up and down the country as the result of hasty legislation, and he hoped that by the acceptance of this Amendment, paralysis of that kind would be prevented. His hon. friend opposite had spoken in rather harsh terms of the Bill. He had never thought much of the measure himself; but he maintained that the right hon. Gentleman might endeavour to simplify the matter by accepting this Amendment

  363
  which would do no earthly harm to anyone, and would enable the landlord to take possession of the land and prevent its deterioration.
  MR. ABEL SMITHsaid that everyone knew that where a man gave up his holding in the ordinary way there was no difficulty whatever about passing it to a new occupier. These things were easily arranged in Scotland every day. That was under the normal and natural system which prevailed in this country and in Scotland. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that by this Bill they were setting up a wholly abnormal and artificial system, under which, once a new holding was made, it was always to remain a holding. What was going to happen if the new holder did not turn up at the right moment, or if the next neighbouring holder did not require enlargement of his holding? It was obvious there must be an interval, because the clause said that the landlord should not do certain things until he had gone through a certain process. Therefore, there must be a certain interval while the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners were going through that process. It had been pointed out that arrangements might be made within intervals of a few weeks although there was some provision made for compensation it was quite inadequate to compensate not only the owner of the land, but also the neighbouring occupiers, for the damage which might be caused in a short interval. He would like to have some explanation as to who was going to carry on the cultivation of the land during the interval which must inevitably occur.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. URE,)said that he remembered the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin introduced the Agricultural Holdings Bill of 1,900, which embraced Scotland, and that measure introduced by reference at least seven or eight Acts of Parliament. He knew that the House spent days and nights trying to understand those Acts although his right hon. friend told them they were perfectly simple.
  364
  He thought a little explanation would enable the House to understand this proposal. He admitted that when a small landowner went wrong and the holding became vacant the landlord had as free a hand as if it had been his own land. He could do what he pleased with it if he was kind enough to send a letter to the Agricultural Commissioners telling them that the holding had become vacant. Then it was for the Commissioners to make up their minds whether they would intervene or not. The landlord could act independently and do what he pleased with as free a hand as if this Bill had not been passed; but if the Agricultural Commissioners, after receiving notice, thought it right that the landlord should not resume the holding because he desired to feu it or let it to a neighbouring landowner or a new holder, then the Agricultural Commissioners were entitled to say: "You must not." If the landlord disputed their decision he could go to the Land Court to have the question settled. Assuming that the Land Court said to the landlord: "You must not let this holding to a new holder or a neighbouring landowner," and if he suffered any loss in consequence he would be compensated. If the Agricultural Commissioners, after being notified that the holding was vacant, took no action, the landlord could do as he pleased with it, and no such interregnum would even occur as that which had been alluded to, because during that time the responsible management of the landlord would continue. It had been said that the effect of this proposal would be to destroy responsible management, but his view was that it would increase the landlord's responsibility.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid the contention of the Solicitor-General was that this clause was drafted with a view to meeting only normal and not abnormal cases such as had been propounded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin and others. Did the hon. and learned Member mean that there was not and could not be any provision inserted in the Bill to meet such cases as those which had been raised? Did he suggest that such

  365
  cases would not arise? Surely it was only right that some provision should be made to meet these cases. To his surprise the Solicitor-General said that the landlord would be in exactly the same position under this Bill as now. After that statement the hon. and learned Member preceeded to say that the landlord had got to let the Agricultural Commissioners know in writing that the particular holding was vacant, and then if the Commissioners paid no attention to that intimation he would be allowed to do what he liked. Did the right hon. Gentleman really think that any landlord would put a plough and a pair of horses on a small holding with the Agricultural Commissioners standing over him, so
  to speak, ready to come clown upon him at any moment and take away that holding? 'Did the hon. and learned Member mean to say that that was exactly the same position as the landlord was in now? That was absurd. All these proceedings took time and no landlord would even dream of spending money in cultivating and placing labour on that small holding under such conditions. He hoped that even now the Secretary for Scotland, if he did not desire his Bill to be an absolute failure, would see his way to accept the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 64. (Division List No. 383.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kelley, George D.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Elibank, Master of

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Alden, Percy

  Erskine, David C.

  Lamont, Norman

  Astbury, John Meir

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (Sr. Pancras, E.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lough, Thomas

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lupton, Arnold

  Beale, W. P.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bell, Richard

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB' hs)

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Maenamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bertram, Julius

  Glover, Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Brace, William

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Crae, George

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M' Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Branch, James

  Gulland, John W.

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

  Brigg, John

  Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

  M'Micking, Major G.

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

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harvey, WE (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Massie, J.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morrell, Philip

  Clough, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Murray, James

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Myer, Horatio

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cory, Clifford John

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Norton, Capt, Cecil William

  Cox, Harold

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Crooks, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Johnson, W. Nuneaton)

  O'Grady, J.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jowett, F. W.

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

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

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Pullar, Sir Robert

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Waring, Walter

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Weir, James Galloway

  Rees, J. D.

  Snowden, P.

  White, George (Norfolk)

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

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Richardson, A.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Williams, Llewelvn (C'rmarth'n

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thorne, William

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

  Robinson, S.

  Tillett, Louis John

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Russell, T. W.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Scott, A. H. (Ash'n-under-Lyne

  Ure, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Sears, J. E.

  Vivian, Henry-

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

  Seely, Colonel

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Shackleton, David James

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

  NOES.

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

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Renton, Major Leslie

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gordon, J.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Sheffleld, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Valentia, Visconnt

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Moore, William

  Younger, George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Mr. Starkey and Mr. Abel Smith.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Question "That those words be there inserted "—put, and agreed to.

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 13, line 35, after the word 'fact,' to insert the words 'in writing.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 13, line 39, after the word 'Commissioners,' to insert the words 'to such amount as may be agreed for, as in case of dispute may be determined by the Land Court.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR HENRY CRAIKUnivertities)SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Univertities) moved as an
  368
  Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out the words "the Land Court," and insert the words "an arbiter' appointed under the provisions of The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906." He said his Amendment opened up a very-important question which they had tried to raise more than once, but had always been prevented by the operation of the guillotine. The two bodies who were to carry out the provisions of the Bill were the Agricultural Commissioners and the Land Court. He himself would have supposed that the Commissioners were to exercise executive functions, to be a department of the Government sitting in an office in Edinburgh and putting the whole machinery of the measure into

  369
  operation, going down and visiting the various localities, establishing small holdings, arranging for their equipment, and supervising the operations generally. One would have supposed that the Land Court would have been purely judicial, with no executive functions whatever—a Court merely to hear appeals brought before them by the small holder, the landlord, or the Agricultural Commissioners themselves. He wished to point out that that was very far from being the case. In the provisions of the Bill the functions of the Agricultural Commissioners and those of the Land Court were almost inextricably mixed up Prom Sub-sections (6) and (8) of Clause 7 it appeared that the Agricultural Commissioners were to act in many ways as judges, and that they were also to undertake the main part of the executive functions. Under Sub-section (10) of the same clause the Land Court had a number of executive functions in their own hand. If hon. Members compared line 33, on page 7, with line 13, on page 10, they would see that the judicial and executive functions were inextricably mixed up. When the functions were mixed up in this confused way, why could not the Government leave the matters which were dealt with in the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to the decision of some outside authority? Why not allow the disputes to be decided by the system of arbitration provided for by the Agricultural Holdings Act of last year? Section 30 of the Crofters Act of 1886 contemplated arbitration. It was a curious fact that that clause was included for repeal in the schedule of this Bill when it was first introduced, but that the right hon. Gentleman had since cut it out of the schedule. That clause would remain part of the Crofters Act of 1886 which under this Bill was to be applied to the whole of Scotland. The Agricultural Commissioners and the Land Court were essentially parties to the whole of the administration of this Bill, and it was perfectly obvious that they must constantly be acting together. On the broad principle of judicial fairness and impartiality they should not be the final arbitrators in their own case. If they were not in sympathy they would not work together. Why should not the parties to a dispute be allowed to go to arbitration,
  370
  which had been largely resorted to, and had been repeatedly recognised by the legislature, instead of leaving the Land Court to be the judges in their own cause. This was a matter of common justice involving the whole principle of fair dealing between man and man. The Government were now introducing a very difficult, unsound, and unwholesome principle. They were denying the landlord who might be affected by this Bill access to the ordinary Courts of Justice with a right of appeal. Why, then, should they not have a really impartial judge appointed in the way contemplated by their own Bill of last session? He begged to move.
  MR. YOUNGERseconded the Amendment. The Secretary for Scotland had never given any sound ground for adopting the principle embodied in the clause.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the words 'the Land Court,' and insert the words' an arbiter appointed under the provisions of The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906."—(Sir Henry Craik.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'the Land Court' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  Mr. UREsaid that none of the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1905 applied to the Crofters Ad of which this Bill was an extension. The hon. Gentleman must see how very inconvenient it would be to introduce two separate tribunals for the purpose of settling disputes under any-one code. They had eliminated the sheriff from the Crofters Act, and in this Bill they confined the settlement of all cases of dispute to the Land Court which worked under this particular code. Hon. Members opposite had frequently complained that the Bilk provided for two separate bodies—the Agricultural Commissioners and the Land Court. Would it be any better to introduce a third by appointing an arbiter under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1906? If a small holder and a landlord had any difference of opinion to be decided by an arbiter, they might have

  371
  it done under the present Bill. Under Section 30 of the Crofters Act of 1886 it was provided that if a landlord and a small holder had any difference between them, it might be decided by an arbiter, and his decision was recorded in the book of the Land Court or Crofters Commission, and it became in effect the judgment of that Court. That clause was never put in force because the landlords and the crofters had such complete confidence in the Crofters Commission that they never resorted to an arbiter. That clause in the Crofters Act was incorporated in this Bill. It was true that that clause was repealed in the schedule in last year's Bill, but in this year's Bill the repealing enactment was left out. It had been said that it was not easy to separate the functions of the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners. He took it that the functions of the Agricultural Commissioners were administrative and those of the Land Court executive, and in that respect it did not differ from the Sheriff Court, which was not only a legal tribunal, but possessed executive functions. Accordingly the Land Court would not only discharge judicial functions in deciding disputes that might arise between the landlord and the small holder, but it would also have executive functions. It appeared, therefore, to the Government that when there was a tribunal expressly provided for the purpose of decking just such questions as would arise under Clause 16, it would introduce confusion to import a new tribunal altogether in the shape of an arbiter under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1906. He objected to the statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities that the Land Court were Judges in their own case. The members of the Land Court had no cause any more than an ordinary Judge. Surely the hon. Member must see that when a question came before the Land Court as to the amount of compensation that was to be given to the landlord that must be decided in a wholly impartial manner. If the Land Court by a judicial judgment gave effect to the recommendation of the Agricultural Commissioners, was it really fair to say that they were men judging their own cause?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid they all agreed that the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman was correct when he said that to adopt the Amendment to incorporate in this Bill an arbiter appointed under the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1906 would be to introduce a third body which was not recognised in this Bill. But he could not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in his view that the introduction of a third body was unnecessary and undesirable. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not attach sufficient importance to the position in which the Land Court was placed in conjunction with the Agricultural Commissioners. The functions of the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners ran together in the most remarkable manner. They must work very largely in unison and in communication one with the other. What was the position? There was the owner of the property who was interested in the land, and there was the tenant who took the holding, and who also had an interest in the land; but where there was a separation of their joint interest there should be an independent individual, with no knowledge of the case except what was stated to him by both sides, who should be charged with the duty of assessing the amount due to the landlord. But the Land Court would be a party to the transaction, and the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman threw a very interesting light on what they had been discussing a few minutes ago. The Solicitor-General for Scotland's explanation of this part of the clause was that throughout this part of the transaction the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners acted together and the landlord would have to look to them in order to take steps to ascertain the amount of compensation he was to receive. His contention was that the decision should be left in the hands of a person who had no connection with the holding except that he was called in to give a judicial decision. Could it be said that the Land Court was in this position? At one moment the matter seemed to rest with the Agricultural Commissioners and at another with the Land Court, and he was quite unable to understand what was the separation of the functions of

  373
  these two bodies throughout the Bill. These two bodies would take the place and occupy the position of the landlord. What would be the view of hon. Members opposite if it were said that on the determination of a tenancy the landlord should say what was to happen? It was admitted that the landlord was under this Bill to be deprived of the functions of which he had hitherto been possessed and that they were to be transferred, not to the tenant, but to the Land Court and the Commissioners, which two bodies crossed each other's path continually, and it was to one of those two bodies that the House was referring the amount of compensation to be paid. It seemed to him to be inequitable in the highest degree and a denial of those principles of justice under which an arbitration had hitherto been granted, that in the case of a dispute arising in which their interests were concerned these bodies were to be the judges. He urged that it would be in accordance with the principles of justice to leave this question to arbitration, because it was impossible in the circumstances that these bodies should be impartial. On these grounds he respectfully pressed upon the Government that some change should be made in the Bill which would recognise those principles of justice between man and man which had hitherto obtained in questions of this kind.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that under the Bill there was transferred to a new official hirer of land a large amount of money in the shape of capital. First of all a" hirer there were the Commissioners, and then they came to the Land Court, which appeared to be constituted practically for the purpose of regulating the capital which came under its purview for the improvement of the state of things in regard to small holdings. What were its functions? The Solicitor-General for Scotland had raised a question as to whether it was worth while creating another authority, and for himself he thought it was not, because there were far too many authorities under the Bill. Last year with great ingenuity they were enabled to make Scot: land ft in with the Land Tenure Bill, which was prepared in the West of
  374
  England, and by those efforts, for which he was grateful to the Solicitor-General, they were enabled without doing any particular harm to Scotland to obtain an arbitration authority which was perfectly satisfactory and above suspicion. Having obtained that authority why was it given the go-by now? He wanted to know what this Court was going to do and who were the people who were going to do the work. They could enter upon thoroughly equipped land upon which the equipment might be worth more than the whole holding. It was a most extraordinary Court. They had power to take a holding and divide it up, and having taken the place of the owner they had power to fix the letting value and select the tenants who were to make use of another man's property. They had perfect freedom to select any one man for the use of another man's capital. They fixed the rent and then fixed on the tenant who should get a loan. They then got loans for which the Treasury provided and of course their first duty was to see that the Treasury suffered no loss. It seemed to be thought that these quasi-judicial authorities would be more judicial than a Judge, but even quasi-judicial authorities were only human, and this body, which was to be the managing director in a forced co-parthership of three, was to divide up the values of the interests. Ultimately these quasi-judicial authorities were to be Judges in their own cause. He knew that the State would lose a good deal of money by these transactions, and as a land owner he thought he saw his way to make a little money at the expense of the State by the creation of these small holdings with the assistance of the State. But they had in that House to consider the interests of the State, and he objected to the manner in which money was to be provided for this scheme. He was moreover concerned to point out that this was not a judicial authority and that no one who had to come under the Land Court could accept its decisions as being without bias. He had no doubt the Prime Minister would call this, as he did the extension of the Crofters Act, quite a small matter over which they had wasted a large amount of time. Without going into the injustice of the measure, which was a great matter, why, having under

  375
  another Act set up a semi-judicial tribunal which was to cost £30,000 a year, they should seek to alter it in regard to this Bill passed his comprehension.
  MR. A. DEWARsaid the question as to whether the Land Court should be the Judge in questions arising between the landowner and the landholder had been made the point of a general attack upon the Bill by the hon. Member for Leith. The impression made upon his mind by the speech of the hon. Member was that this tribunal was corrupt or incompetent. Those were the two great faults of which complaint was made in a Judge. But he would point out that this tribunal was not yet appointed. He had noticed that the right hon. Member for South Dublin had studiously safeguarded himself in the matter. What he said was that they were too much mixed up with the matter from the beginning to have an unprejudiced mind. That was opposition which he could understand. But, after all, when the matter was looked at reasonably, these Commissioners and the Land Court must be drawn from men of standing and they must be trusted. That was the theory of the Bill. Surely they could be trusted in these matters. If an arbiter were to be called in at the last moment it would only cause additional complexity. There was no provision in the Bill for an arbiter, and who would pay him if he were called in? Whoever called him in would have to pay. Under the Bill there would be these functionaries who would be paid by the State, and this would be part of their duty. He did not think that any one of the functions that had been put upon them would necessarily prejudice them to such an extent as to make them incapable of acting fairly. What they required in justice was speed and cheapness. These Land Commissioners were familiar with every detail and could do the thing at once, but to call in an arbiter would only mean complexity, delay, and expense. He hoped the House would not accept the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the hon. Gentleman had entirely mistaken the point at issue.
  376
  He himself was one of those who thought that to take property out of the open market and place it in the hands of a tribunal to be dealt with was a proceeding full of risk and one which ought to be avoided. To place the whole of the land of Scotland in the hands of such a tribunal for the purpose of being dealt with was a dangerous operation which ought not to be approved by this House without good reason. But if the Government were going to embark on that perilous undertaking let them at least see that the tribunal upon which they were going to confer these powers was a judicial tribunal and not an administrative department. That was plain common sense, but it was not the policy of the Government. In the Bill of last year the Land Court had no existence, but having brought it into this Bill it would have been wise on the part of the Government to have seen that the functions given to it were judicial only, and that the gentlemen forming it were given no such responsibilities as would bias their judgment or cause them to depart from the strict path of impartiality. When they said that this Bill had created such bias they must not be taken to say that the gentlemen to be appointed would be either incompetent or corrupt. There was one point that had not been asked and which ought to be asked Why had not the Government, having created a Land Court, given to that body none but judicial duties? That was the course which would have been adopted by statesmen, but the Government had done nothing of the sort. In fact he had never seen such English as that which appeared in this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: It is Scottish.] His hon. friend had no right to insult the country to which he belonged. He absolutely denied that it was Scottish, and it hardly deserved to be called English. He would read the particular clause they were discussing—
  "Where by reason of renunciation, removal, failure of a statutory successor, or otherwise, a holding has at any time ceased or is about to cease to be held by a landholder, the landlord shall forthwith intimate the fact to the Agricultural Commissioners, and shall not, if the Land Court on their application after hearing the landlord so determine, and during such period and subject to such conditions (which shall include payment of compensation to the

  377
  landlord by the Agricultural Commissioners in respect of any loss arising out of such determination) as the Land Court may prescribe, be entitled without the consent of the Agricultural Commissioners to let the holding otherwise than to a neighbouring landholder for the enlargement of his holding, or to a new holder."
  The masters of style in his country would be heartily ashamed of perpetuating such a sentence as that. When they had gone through all this farrago and tried to find out what it meant, was it not clear that it made the Land Court the Judge in its own cause? In the first place it was made the instrument of a costly and philanthropic endeavour to change the land system of Scotland. These gentlemen had cast upon then the responsibility of carrying out as cheaply as might be a philanthropic system of land occupation in Scotland. Who would allow a philanthropist filled with enthusiasm for mankind to fix the value of property which he took for the purpose of carrying out his ideas? Who had ever suggested it? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell him whether the following propositions were incorrect. The Land Commission were to be entrusted by the Government with the carrying out of a philanthropic social reform as cheaply as they could. In the process of doing that they were themselves to value the property which they took. He submitted that that was putting them in a judicial position which they would never allow to a philanthropist, however pure and elevated his motives. They would not allow a philanthropist to carry out his admirable and excellent projects by taking at his own valuation another's property which stood in the way of the attainment of his objects. But that was exactly the position which the Government was taking up under this Bill. It was a wholly unnecessary position. They might have said that they did not want to bring into existence this judicial body; but having erected it, they made it judicial, and then threw on it functions outside its judicial capacity. That could not be good legislation. They had brought into existence two sets of individuals, the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners. They might have given everything that was administrative to the Agricultural Commissioners, and everything that was judicial to the Land Court. If that had been done in the Bill, it would have removed to a
  378
  certain extent his objections, and enabled the measure to be carried out by the Government in a statesmanlike manner. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that they had attempted to do that, for if they looked through this clause to find its meaning in the mist of all these parentheses and sub-clauses, they would find in the section they were discussing that the administrative and judicial functions were mixed up as between the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners. For reasons into which he need not enter, the Government had taken care that certain clauses should not be discussed, and on this clause, which they were enabled to discuss by the fortune of circumstances, a point had been raised which, however, was not more apparent in this than in previous clauses that had been excluded from debate. They had endeavoured to explain the point, but no answer to it had been vouchsafed from the Treasury Bench; no answer had been given by the Solicitor-General who had immediately preceded him. He gathered from the Secretary for Scotland that he thought he had not given a fair account of the Bill; certainly the Solicitor-General had not shown that it was not fair, and he waited for the Secretary for Scotland to show that he had in any way exaggerated what it must be admitted was essentially a vice in the Bill.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid the observations of the right hon. Gentleman had gone somewhat wide of the Amendment under discussion. He was delighted to learn from the hon. Member for Leith Burghs, so far as the creation of new holdings were concerned, that the landlords were not to lose money. He was delighted to have that admission from him. There was no more powerful critic of the Bill than the hon. Gentleman, and it was comforting to think that the compensation sc) liberally provided for in this and other clauses of the Bill would not be called upon to the extent anticipated by some critics of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the lack of opportunity to discuss the subject raised by the Amendment. As it happened, the division of the Bill into three days had been so carried out as to bring into prominence the two

  379
  clauses which dealt with the subject—Clause 7, which dealt with the whole of the arrangements for the creation of new holdings, and Clause 16, which was now under discussion, and in which the relations between the Agricultural Commissioners and the Land Court came under review. Under this clause, if existing holdings passed from the present control of the landlord to the future control of the landholder, the Land Court would have no say as to what holdings should pass to the new tenants. The Land Court would have the duty of fixing the rent, it was true; but this duty had already been carried out in other countries and in Scotland itself with complete satisfaction by a tribunal such as the Land Court proposed under the Bill. His hon. friend had made it perfectly clear that the functions of the Land Court were judicial and not administrative. Let them take Clause 7 under which the creation of small holdings was carried out. The Land Court were brought in under that clause in connection with disputes between the landlord and the Agricultural Commissioners. Was not their function judicial where they decided disputes between two parties as to the transactions to be carried out by them? He failed entirely to see how the Land Court could be regarded otherwise than judicial in that direction. They had no administrative duties; they had no funds at their disposal; they had no interest in the matter; they had no rent I to receive from the holdings; they were simply in the position of a judicial authority to settle any matters of dispute between the landlords and the Agricultural Commissioners. There would be hundreds of new holdings created of which the Land Court would have no cognisance whatever. Everything tended to show that the Land Court was likely, to be the most experienced and authoritative body of the kind in Scotland. In the first place, they would have an experience which was unrivalled in such matters. The Government would be responsible for their selection. They were responsible for the selection of the Crofters Commission, and on the part of the landlords and on the part of the tenants it was true to say that other arbiters in Scotland had nothing like the confidence and authority possessed by
  380
  the Crofters Commission in relation to their duties. It was possible, he submitted, that what had been done before could be done again. Men would be selected for this purpose who would be properly qualified, and who would possess an experience rarely open to other people. It was possible to take another view, he submitted, but he held that experience tended to show that the Land Court would deal justly as between the interests committed to their charge, and it was really not open to the objection which had been urged that it was not a judicial authority. His hon. friend had pointed out that the judicial authority of the Land Court was necessarily executive, because it had to formulate orders which it must see carried out. That was true of not only the Land Court under this Bill, but of every Court; therefore, the judicial authority in that sense was always an executive authority. So far as administrative duties were concerned they belonged to the Agricultural Commissioners, who would be allowed a discretion in expending this money. Another point was as to registration. The registration of the holding was made under the authority of the Land Court, who were bound to see the provisions of the Act in that respect complied with. It was on their authority that entries would be made in the book, and they were the judges whether holdings were or were not entitled to come within the Act. In that respect and in all other respects the Land Court had a purely judicial and executive authority; they had nothing whatever to do with administration. The Government could not depart from the attitude which they had taken throughout this Bill, that in the place of the arbitrator under the Agricultural Holdings Act they had put the Land Court which exercised his functions.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid his right hon. friend and the hon. Member for Leith Burghs had pointed out that the compensation to be assessed by the Land Court was compensation on the determination of the tenancy. They would have to decide what compensation was to be paid, and that compensation was to be paid on their own decision, so

  381
  that, under the words of the clause, the Land Court had to decide to do a certain thing, and then they said, arising out of their own decision, what compensation was to be paid. He agreed with the Leader of the Opposition that it was a most extraordinary clause. He maintained that the compensation would be compensation arising out of their own decision. There was no other way of reading the clause. He would ask the Lord Advocate whether it was purely a judicial function that the Land Court should assess the compensation arising out of their own decisions?
  MR. MOLTENOsaid the constitution of this Court followed the rule of all other Courts, which was that where the State had any controversy with an individual to be decided an independent person should determine the matter. They never allowed the State to proceed with all its force against an individual, and such points were always settled by an independent judge. That was exactly what was proposed in this case. The Agricultural Commissioners were the body who prepared and were responsible for the scheme. They came into collision with the landlord and the Land Court was then called in to decide between the Commissioners who wanted this thing done and the landlord who did not want it done. He saw nothing in any of these clause which derogated from the position that the person deciding between the parties was perfectly independent.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid the speech of the Secretary for Scotland astounded him on account of the ignorance he had just shown of his own Bill. He would pass over his extraordinary statement that there was no real distinction between the executive and the judiciary. That statement was calculated to make them reconsider the elementary principles of constitutional law. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the whole of this administration was in the hands of the Commissioners, that the Land Court were not concerned, and that they would never be moved by anything but judicial motives. Had the right hon. Gentleman forgotten what
  382
  was contained in Sub-section 10 of Clause 7, which provided that—
  "(10) The Land Court shall thereafter determine, with due regard to the provisions of the Landholders Acts, and by order or orders declare:—(a) In respect of what land, if any, specified in the scheme, holdings for new holders may respectively be constituted, and up to what date the power to constitute them other" wise than by agreement may be exercised; (b) what is the fair rent for each new holding; (c) what land, if any, specified in the scheme is to be excluded therefrom, and (d) whatever else may be necessary for the purposes of adjusting the rights of all parties interested in or affected by the proceedings."
  After those points had been deter-mined, then, and then only, the administration of the Act began and the Agricultural Commissioners came in and exercised their powers. If as a consequence of their action a dispute arose and a question of compensation had to be settled, could the right hon. Gentleman stand up and tell them that the Land Court would come in at that stage for the first time, and without any previously formed bias? Before the Agricultural Commissioners could lift a finger the Land Court must decide what land might be used and what holdings might be created. That was as plain as words could make it, and it was enough to prove that the Law Courts were parties to the previous proceedings, of the results of which they were to be the final judges.
  MR. BEALEsaid there was nothing unusual in allowing a Court to assess the damages which a person suffered in consequence of its own order. In all interrogatory relief by way of injunction relief was given upon the terms that the man who sought the relief should pay damages, and they were always assessed by the Court that made the order. If it was not an easy matter they sent it up to a referee, and that was a course which would be entirely open to the Land Court under this Bill. He did not see that there was any danger at all in leaving this in the hands of the Court which made the order.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the case put forward by the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken seemed to him to be quite beside the issue. This clause

  383
  clearly meant that the Agricultural Commissioners must apply to the Land Court, and the contention that the Land Court only came in when the landlord had a dispute with somebody else did not arise. The Agricultural Commissioners must apply to the Land Court who might make a determination. If on that determination a loss arose then the Land Court assessed the damages. That was

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Kelley, George D.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Duckworth, James

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Alden, Percy

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lamont, Norman

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

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

  Astbury, John Meir

  Elibank, Master of

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Balfour Robert (Lanark)

  Essex, R. W.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Barnes, G. N.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lough, Thomas

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lupton, Arnold

  Barry RedmondJ. (Tyrone, N.)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Beale, W. P.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

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

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Maclean, Donald

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bell, Richard

  Gill, A. H.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Benn Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Glover, Thomas

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Callum, John M.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Crae, George

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Brace, William

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Maddison, Frederick

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Branch, James

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Brigg, John

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Massie, J.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Byles, William Pollard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mooney, J. J.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morrell, Philip

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Henry, Charles S.

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murray, James

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Myer, Horatio

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hodge, John

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Clough, William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Jenkins, J.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Crooks, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Radford, G. H.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  quite a different thing from the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because the loss arose through the decision of the Land Court. The thing was absolutely absurd when put into plain language.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Aves, 236; Noes, 72. (Division List No.' 389.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Snowden, P.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Richardson, A.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Robinson, S.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Rose, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Williams, Llewelvn (Carmarth'n

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Thorne, William

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

  Rose, Charles Day

  Tillett, Louis John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Rowlands, J.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Russell, T. W.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Ure, Alexander

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

  Sears, J. E.

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Seddon, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Seely, Colonel

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  Wardle, George J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Waring, Walter

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

  Pease.

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gordon, J.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, J. W.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Starff'sh.

  Cave, George

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

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

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Younger, George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Moore, William

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Viscount Valentia

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Nield, Herbert

  Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON MR. MUNRO FERGUSON moved an Amendment substituting for the second paragraph of Clause 16, which deals with the payment of compensation by the Agricultural Commissioners to a landlord for damage or injury under certain specified heads caused by the constitution or enlargement of a holding otherwise than by agreement, a provision that "compensation shall be payable to any landlord or occupier for any loss such landlord or occupier may prove to be due to the
  386
  action of the Land Court or of the Agricultural Commissioners." He said the Amendment would give a very simple form of claim which should be satisfied where the land had been equipped by the owner. If the owner incurred any loss through experimental work under this measure in connection with the creation of small farms, he ought to be compensated. The view held by most hon. Members was that experimental work would be carried on on a considerable scale. The provisions for the compensation to be paid by the Land Court for

  387
  what it took in the making of new holdings were not such as need alarm any owner, but, on the other hand, at the termination of a tenancy, if an owner had to take over the fixtures of a small farm there would be considerable risk of loss. Whether the loss was large or small, it should be made good by the Land Court. They had no business to conduct public experiments at private expense, as would be the case in the circumstances he had indicated if no compensation was to be paid by the Land Court. He would be the first to support in the general interest experiments which were properly and profitably conducted, but under this scheme there would be inevitable loss. If the Land Court was to be an independent judicial authority, it should be given a free hand in regard to the payment of compensation. If that were done, a great deal of the opposition to the Bill would disappear.
  MR. ABEL SMITHin seconding the Amendment, said the words proposed to be inserted had a great advantage over the words in the Bill in that they would secure compensation not only to the landlord but also to the occupier. If the new authorities set up by the Bill were going to take portions of existing holdings, it was highly probable, he thought inevitable, that serious damage would be done to the present occupiers of farms. In every part of the country there was bad land and good land, and it was not likely that for the purposes of the small holdings the Agricultural Commissioners or the Land Court would want to take the worst land. It was highly probable that they would want the best. It was well know that a great deal of inferior land had been brought into cultivation by farmers who occupied better land adjoining. If the Commissioners came along and fixed their eyes on good land at the bottom of a hill, they might take it and leave the present occupier in possession of the inferior land on the braes, and in that way he would suffer considerable loss.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 14, line 3, to leave out from the word 'that' to end of clause 16, and insert the words 'compensation shall be payable to any landlord or occupier for any loss such landlord or occupier may prove to be due to the action
  388
  of the Land Court or of the Agricultural Commissioners.'"—(Mr. Munro-Ferguson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'where under the provision of the landholders Acts, the holding was' stand part of the clause."
  MR. UREsaid the Government could not accept those words because they imposed too vague and general a charge on public money. In the Prime Minister's clause which the hon. Gentleman proposed to amend ample provision was made for full compensation being paid to the landlord for the loss he might suffer on account of his parting with the land for the purpose of small holdings. The House would see that the clause which had been introduced into the Bill in compliance with the Prime Minister's pledge, provided that compensation should be paid under three heads first, where the value of the land was affected in consequence of the new holding being carved out; secondly, where there had been liabilities imposed upon the landlord in consequence of the new holding having been constituted; and thirdly (by a later Amendment which by the permission of the House he would refer to), where there had been nonpayment of rent due to the constitution of the holding. That meant that the Agricultural Commissioners might be liable to pay a full year's rent to the landlord if he lost a full year's rent in consequence of the constitution of the holding. It had been limited to one year's rent, because, until a full year's rent was due, the landlord could not remove the tenant from the holding, but after a year's rent was due he had it in his power to turn the tenant out. If he allowed the tenant to remain for any good reason, the loss of rent was not due to the constitution of the holding, but to an arrangement which he had made without the knowledge of the Agricultural Commissioners, and in consequence, it might be, of the landlord's benevolent action towards his tenant.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that his original Amendment, which was more complicated than that now proposed, had been intended to cover all cases. But he had proposed it as it now stood

  389
  in case his original Amendment should not be reached. There were other parts which were not covered by the three heads mentioned by the Solicitor-General and he still thought that his proposal was not the simplest. As regarded the creation of a new holding he had admitted freely that the compensation provided in the first instance was sufficient.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. YOUNGER MR. YOUNGER moved an Amendment to make the clause applicable where land was acquired by agreement as well as compulsorily. He raised this question in order to see what was the extent and value of the promise made by the Prime Minister. As the Solicitor-General had stated, this clause was extremely restricted in its character, and granted compensation only in cases where the holding had been formed otherwise than by agreement, that was to say, by compulsion. He was sure that it was the desire of the promoters of the Bill that every encouragement should be given to the formation of small holdings by mutual agreement, and that compensation should also be paid when a new holding was constituted or enlarged by agreement. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman at present in charge of the Bill had any authority to extend the clause, or whether the matter had been considered since he had put his Amendment on the Paper. But it appeared to him that the landlord and the future tenant would be almost compelled to arrange for compulsory terms being imposed upon them, although they were otherwise willing to come to an agreement, for the purpose of allowing the landlord to get compensation in the event of failure. He thought his Amendment would be a great improvement of the clause and would not place any serious barrier against new holdings being formed.
  MR. J. F. MASONseconded the Amendment. The clause they were now discussing would, he contended, impose a hardship on the owner, because it took from him the right to deal with the land as he thought fit. In the second part of the clause a distinction was made between holdings formed compulsorily
  390
  and those formed by agreement; and where the holding was formed by agreement the landlord would lose the benefit of the clause. It would drive landlords to resist the working of the Act, and force on the constitution of small holdings by compulsion, so that the landlords might get the admittedly considerable benefits of the clause. That would be an embargo to the creation of small holdings by agreement.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 14, line 4, to leave out the words 'otherwise than,' and insert the words 'either compulsorily or.'"—(Mr. Younger.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,)said he was sorry that the Government did not sec their way to accept this Amendment, for the reason that there were provisions in Subsection (8) of Clause 7 for carving out new holdings, which was a cardinal feature of an arrangement of this kind. The carving out of a new holding was in the first place to be done by agreement between the landowner and the Agricultural Commissioners. He quite agreed that it was advisable not to put any embargo on such an arrangement; but the view of the Government was that by the scheme of the clause no such embargo would be imposed. A reference to Sub-section (8, Clause 7, would show that a scheme was to be prepared which covered the entire transaction, and that that scheme was to be remitted to the landlord and tenant in order to have their assent When that essential condition had been complied with they hoped that the financial arrangements would be completed, and the new holder, when he came into possession, would enjoy certain statutory rights. If the parties could not agree then the compulsory powers came in and the tenant was put on a statutory ground. A landlord might agree to negotiate, but when he saw the scheme he might prefer to be treated compulsorily. It seemed to him that the Government had provided for everything, and that a scheme having been settled upon it must be treated as compulsory.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTTthought that the speech of the Lord Advocate strengthened their arguments against the proposals of the Government. The Government based all their hopes on the co-operation of the landlords, and now the right hon. Gentleman came down and put a premium upon the
  landlords breaking the agreement. He hoped that in order to obtain the cooperation of the landlords the Government would accept the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 231; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 390.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Snowden, P.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Robinson, S.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Rose, Charles Day

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Rowlands, J.

  Tillett, Louis John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

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

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Sears, J. E.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Seddon, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Seely, Colonel

  Vivian, Henry

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  Waton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wardle, George J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Waring, Walter

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Watt, Henry A.

  NOES.

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

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Nield, Herbert

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Starkey, John R.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Cave, George

  Hills, J. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Younger and Sir Samuel Scott.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR moved an Amendment to provide that compensation to the landlord in certain cases should be payable for, inter alia, "non-payment of rent in respect of the holding." He said the House had had a discussion on the previous evening upon the point which the Amendment sought to cover, and it was owing to that discussion that the Amendment was put down. It was just possible that a small holder might become bankrupt and fail to pay his rent; that the holding would become vacant and the landowner would be unable to obtain the rent due to him during the period of vacancy. The Government had endeavoured to meet that by these words, which he hoped would be satisfactory to hon. Members opposite,
  394
  who had discussed the point on the previous evening.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 14, line 9, after the word 'through,' to insert the words 'non-payment of rent in respect of the holding or.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONexpressed his satisfaction at the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to meet the views of hon. Members on this point. All he wished now was some

  395
  explanation of the words "constituted as a holding," which were said to be the governing words of the clause. If those were the governing words of the clause the Amendment would result in giving only one year's rent. In the Amendment which he had moved on the previous evening, he had, as the right hon. Gentleman would see, provided for the payment of two years rent, which he thought was a far better proposal than that, of the Governmen. They were told that the landlords were not a strictly benevolent race, but if it were laid down that the landlord, who give to a tenant who was in arrear with his rent a benefit beyond what would be covered by one year's rent, would not be entitled to compensation beyond the amount of one year's rent, the effect would be to make the benevolent landlord as extinct as the dodo. He felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman would see that there was a point to be considered here. The additional liability would be very small, and he thought it would meet his point if the right hon. Gentleman made the compensation run up to the amount of two years rent instead of one, which he thought would be the effect of his Amendment.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid the governing words of the clause, as had been said, were "constituted as a new holding." As the hon. Gentleman was aware, when over a year's rent was due to the landlord the crop was liable to be taken by him. Under the words he now proposed there would be a discretion left in the Land Court to have regard to the special circumstances of a particular case. He thought the strict interpretation of these words would limit the compensation to one year's rent.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that, while he agreed with his hon. friend, he recognised the difficulty which arose in this matter owing to the connection between this Bill and the Crofters Act. But the lamentable result to which his hon. friend had referred would inevitably follow. One result of this Bill would be to a large extent to divorce the landlords' interest from the soil, but that they could not help. The time had passed for considerations of that kind.
  The question now was how far this new sub-section went towards redeeming the pledge given by the Prime Minister on I Second Reading. His objection had always been to the tribunal which had to assess the damage, and this sub-section was to meet the case of the landlords. It seemed to him that the question of damage ought to be remitted to another tribunal, but he advised his hon. friend to accept the Amendment as a fair compromise, although it did not go so far as could be wished.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 14, line 11, after the second word 'of,' to insert the words 'or the payment of compensation for.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR moved to add the following words at the end of the clause:—"But nothing in this proviso shall apply to the case of a holding ceasing to be held by a landholder by reason of resumption by the landlord or by reason of the sale of the holding to the landholder." In the case of resumption by the landlord they had simply an instance of the landlord asserting his rights under the Bill and fulfilling the conditions of ownership. The other object was to make sure that similar results applied to the case where the holding was sold to the landholder. The object of the Bill was to allow such action to be unfettered in every way.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 14, line 14, at the end, to insert the words 'but nothing in this proviso contained shall apply to the ease of a holding ceasing to be held by a landholder by reason of resumption by the landlord or by reason of the sale of the holding to the landholder.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not see why the Amendment was necessary at all. In the first place, where the landlord exercised the right of resuming the tenancy, how did the question of compensation arise at all? Compensation was paid for damage done to the

  397
  landlord upon the creation of the small holding, that was to say, where his property was taken to create a small holding, or where one was already in existence in connection with which damage had accrued to him. The Prime Minister had assured them that if any such case occurred provision would be made for compensation. All that had been done. The difficulty could not arise where the landlord resumed possession. The thing was res acta; it was over. The resumption by the landlord referred to a period at a much later date, after all these transactions had been closed and compensation had been made. Therefore, unless some reason was given, he should object to the Amendment on the ground that the words were unnecessary, and that words which were unnecessary might prove a source of danger. As to the second part of the Amendment, his objection was altogether of a different kind. There he thought the Amendment was unjust, because it referred to the sale of the holding to the landholder, but the landlord did not participate in the transaction; he was not even consulted. He did not know what provisions there were in the Bill requiring sales; so far as his knowledge went this was the first time the question of sale was referred to in the measure at all. What was the contingency sought to be met? It was quite evident there was nothing to deal with except the resumption by the landlord after it might be ten, fifteen, or twenty years. Obviously in connection with the actual resumption there could be no claim for that, because the landlord became possessed of his own property. The first part of the Amendment was unnecessary and the second unjust.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment probably erred on the side of extreme caution, and dealt with a case that would not be likely to arise. But he would point out that there was nothing to prevent the right of resumption by the landlord at any date. They might have a sudden development of the neighbourhood; coal might be discovered, and a new pit sunk. They did not wish to interfere with the right of
  398
  the landlord to resume instantly. That necessity might arise even during the first year of the holding, and what they wished to provide for was that before there was a resumption, at all events the whole of the claims, while the relation between landlord and tenant still subsisted under the scheme of the Bill, should be settled. They wanted simply to provide for a settlement of the claims during the currency of the tenancy, and while the relation of landlord and tenant continued. As to the second part of the Amendment it was not open to the objection which the right hon. Gentleman thought. He quite admitted that it was a remote case they were providing for, but it might happen that during the early period of the tenancy the tenant might come into cash and wish to buy the holding. The landlord would then sell the holding to the landholder, and there was nothing to prevent his doing so on any terms he liked.
  MR. WALTER LONG: By agreement?
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: By agreement. The case he was assuming was supposed to take place at an early period. It would be a pity to have that transaction concluded, leaving undetermined a loss incurred before the date of that transaction. The case was a remote one but he thought it was safe on the whole that while the relation of the parties as landlord and tenant still continued all matters should be settled during the currency of the term and not after the transaction.
  MR. LAMBTON MR. LAMBTON said the question of sale to the landholder was raised upstairs. He would like to ask the Lord Advocate whether the words of the clause were sufficient to give the landowner this power. Section 18 referred to the Act of 1886, and under Section 2 of that Act there was no power given to the landlord to resume for the purpose of sale; he could only resume for some reasonable purpose having relation to the good of the holding or of the estate, or in respect of the letting value of the land. There was no provision in the Crofters Act giving power for the purpose of sale to anybody. He wished to know whether the words of the Bill made clear this power of resumption.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWreplied that, resumption for sale was not in any of the Acts. If the landlord wished to sell he just sold. He meant, that if landlord A sold his property to B, then B became the owner of the land with all A's rights. The new buyer came into the place of the seller with all the landlord's rights.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. J. F. MASON MR. J. F. MASON (Windsor) moved to Amend Clause 17 by providing that "when the Land Court, after application by the landholder, has fixed the fair rent the landholder shall not be entitled to renounce his tenancy for a period of seven years thereafter unless the landlord agrees to accept such renunciation at any time prior to the expiry of such period.'" He said that this Clause was perhaps the most unjust and unfair clause of the whole Bill. It simply enabled the Agricultural Commissioners to get out of a difficulty on the back of the landlord. Section 7 of the Act of 1886, to which it referred, was a very short section contained in three lines and referred to the landlord's renouncing the tenancy. He was not surprised that the draughtsmen seeing the pecuniary difficulties which were likely to fall to the Agricultural Commissioners, tried to draft a proviso to add on to that short section to enable them to get some degree of security for their money. But the section took no cognisance of any money that might be due to the landlord. It simply stated that the landholder should not without the consent of the Land Court be entitled to renounce his tenancy if his liability to the Agricultural Commissioners was not wholly discharged. He ventured to think that the draughtsman could hardly be said to have seen the effect of that section at all. It simply meant that the Agricultural Commissioners in order to be secured for their money were going to saddle the landlord with a tenant, who, by hypothesis, because he was in financial difficulties, might be assumed not to be a successful farmer. He might probably be a bad farmer, and yet he was to be saddled upon the landlord against his own will and against the will of the landlord because he owed money to the Agricultural Commissioners. The
  400
  chances of their recovering the money were perhaps not in the least improved by their doing this, and it seemed to him to be an unnecessary injustice to the landlord, who would be obliged to keep an undesirable tenant who was not in a position to pay his rent any more than he was able to pay his debts. He thought it was a most unwise and most unjust thing to attempt to get security in this way at the expense of the landlord and at the expense of the holding, which would be deteriorated. The Amendment changed entirely the sense of the clause. It was a proviso which prevented the landholder, after he had had his rent fixed, from breaking his bargain by throwing up his holding for a certain period unless he had the permission of the landlord. It was only just that when a rent had been fixed for seven years it should be binding on both parties. They might safely assume that if the landholder wanted to leave his holding it would not be in the interests of the landlord to retain him against his will, and that part of the proviso would not be taken advantage of. The draughtsman did not seem to have realised the disastrous effect of this proposal upon cultivation and upon the landlord himself. It was unwise, as well as unjust, to attempt to get security in this way at the expense of the landlord and of the land itself.
  MR. MUNRO PERGUSONseconded the Amendment. As the clause stood it furnished a kind of burlesque. A man, because he owed the State money, was short of money, was to be fixed on the land. This was one of the clauses carried under closure in Committee, and it was an example of the kind of provision which made the Bill intolerable to any one accustomed to practical work in agriculture.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 14, line 17, to leave out from the word 'that,' to the end of the clause, and insert the words 'when the Land Court, after application by the landholder, has fixed the fair rent the landholder shall not be entitled to renounce his tenancy for a period of seven years thereafter un-less the landlord agrees to accept such renunciation at any time prior to the expiry of such period.'"—(Mr. J. F. Mason.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the first word 'the,' in line 21, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR F. BANBURYcommented on the ludicrousness of the idea of keeping a man who was a failure in the business in which he was failing. This proposition "took the cake" if he might be pardoned a colloquial expression; and the Amendment was fair and reasonable. The clause provided that if a man owed money to the Agricultural Commissioners he was not to be allowed to leave his holding. If common sense had been brought into the drafting of the Bill it would have provided that when a man had made a failure of a profession or business the best thing to do was to get him out of it. That had always been his idea of business. It was absurd to keep a man in a position in which he had failed, because he might take up something else and prove successful. That had turned out to be the case in regard to an hon. and learned Member opposite who was now a most distinguished lawyer. Some people had the idea that land was a gold mine, and that the moment they were put by the State in possession of forty acres of land belonging to somebody else they would become prosperous. His hon. friend had moved an Amendment which said that the landlord might come to an agreement with the man who had been a failure. The Agricultural Commissioners would no doubt lose money, but they would only be in the position of a great many other people who had advanced money upon an unsuccessful venture. In starting these pseudo-philanthropic enterprises the Government surely did not think they were not going to lose money. They were sure to incur loss, and they should have arranged what they would do in such an event. In Scotland they had a system of land tenure lasting for nineteen years. He remembered that Mr. Gladstone laid great stress upon that fact, which, in his opinion, was the best sort of tenure they could have in regard to land. If that was the case it followed that the rent should not be altered during the first seven years. He supposed it was intended to give some sort of return to the landlord for the
  402
  capital he had invested in buildings. He was not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman would be inclined to accept the second part of the Amendment, but he saw no reason why he should not accept the first part, which seemed to him to be absolutely essential for the successful working of the Act.
  MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR said the Amendment was based on misapprehension. Several incorrect statements had been made concerning the clause, one being that the subject matter had not been discussed in Committee. Under the Crofters Act a crofter was entitled, on one year's notice in writing to the landlord, to renounce his tenancy. That remained. The clause did not touch it. All it did was to recognise that the Agricultural Commissioners might have an interest in the holding, so that if a tenant sent a notice to his landlord giving a year's notice a similar notice should be sent to the Commissioners, so that they might be aware that he had renounced his holding. Surely that was entirely proper. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who was a viligant guardian of public finance, would surely agree that a notice of this kind should be sent to the Agricultural Commissioners. That was all this clause did in the first place. It then became a matter for the landlord and the Commissioners to decide whether this tenant should be allowed to carry out his intention. The only effect of the clause was to call in the discretion of the Commissioners as to whether or not the tenant should be allowed to renounce. If a tenant was an ineffective and incapable man, surely the sooner he was got rid of the better. But the Amendment suggested that this incompetent tenant should be kept for seven years unless the landlord agreed to accept the renunciation at any time. That was an unworkable and impracticable proposal, and it would be a much more unsatisfactory provision than that in the clause. If properly safeguarded in the public interest, the provision for facilitating renunciation was a useful one. It was not proposed in the interest of bankrupts. There might be satisfactory tenants who wished to go to larger

  403
  holdings. Under the Crofters Act men had frequently changed to larger holdings. This renunciation clause was a perfectly innocuous and wise one. It insisted that the Agricultural Commissioners should be called into consultation with the view to protecting the public interest when a tenant gave notice of renunciation. The Amendment would really tend to prevent the landlord from getting rid of an unwilling or unsatisfactory tenant, and that would be to the injury of the holding and of the Agricultural Commissioners. He was, therefore, unable to accept the Amendment.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid that after all the discussions in Committee and on the floor of the House the Secretary for Scotland entirely tailed to understand his own Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the power to renounce a holding had been frequently taken advantage of under the Crofters Act. That had been done principally for one specific purpose, and that was to get out of being a crofter. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] He maintained that that was so. Many of the crofters had been grievously disappointed at the conditions obtained under the Act, and they desired to resume the friendly relations with the landlords which existed previously. They, therefore, renounced their tenancies as crofters and took leases. Under this Bill leaseholders would be included, and, therefore, there would be no opportunity for a man renouncing his holding as a yearly tenant; he would be bound to be a small landholder whether he liked it or not. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Agricultural Commissioners were to be enabled to prevent a small landholder from renouncing his tenancy. That was not so at all. All they could do was to fix upon the land a most undesirable class of small landholders—men who had not wholly discharged their liabilities to the Commissioners. The desire of the Government seemed to be to anchor on the land the most unsatisfactory and unpromising class of tenant so long as the liabilities to the Agricultural Commissioners were not
  404
  wholly discharged. The right hon. Gentleman said the reason of that was the public interest—that money was still owing to the public. He ventured to say that the public interest was not so closely identified with the few pounds that might be owing as with the proper cultivation of the land. If a small landholder who entered on a bad bargain and incurred certain liabilities was to be tied down to the holding there would be a certain risk of the land deteriorating and thereby more harm than good would be done. The Amendment was most reasonable, for he did not think any responsible landlord would undertake to spend money on a holding which could be given up on one year's notice. If a man got his rent fixed for a period of seven years for a holding which might be part of a farm in a high state of cultivation, he might make a good profit for two or three years, and then throw it back on the hands of the landlord. That was not a course of conduct which could be beneficial to agriculture generally throughout the country, or conducive to the welfare of the scheme proposed in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had not put forward one solid argument against the Amendment.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT*SIR SAMUEL SCOTT said that there was a class of tenants known in the agricultural districts as wreckers. The right hon. Gentleman in supporting this measure invariably pointed to the success of the Crofters Acts, but it should be remembered that the conditions in the crofting counties were entirely different from those in the Lowlands. The right hon. Gentleman had contended that it was only right that the Agricultural Commissioners should be able to prevent a tenant renouncing his tenancy, because they had an interest in the holding. From the first, the Secretary for Scotland had said that there was no principle of dual ownership in the Bill. And yet the right hon. Gentleman came to the House and gave them a very excellent illustration of dual ownership as created by the Bill. What was the position under this clause? It was that if the small holder desired to renounce his holding, under Subsection 7 of the Act of 1886, as amended by

  405
  Clause 17 of this Bill, he gave notice to his landlord, and if he owed the Agricultural Commissioners any money, the Agricultural Commissioners could come in and refuse permission to that tenant to renounce his holding. Therefore the position was this: that an unwilling tenant gave notice to his landlord that he wished to renounce his holding, and although the landlord desired to get rid of him, he could be prevented by the Agricultural Commissioners. That was to say, this man would be planted on the landlord, he would have no interest in his farm, and naturally he would farm badly in order to force the landlord to get rid of him under other clauses. That was one of the many gross injustices.

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Essex, R. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Astbury, John Meir

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Barnes, G. N.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Beale, W. P.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bell, Richard

  Gill, A. H.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lough, Thomas

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Glover, Thomas

  Lupton, Arnold

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Grant, Corrie

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Maclean, Donald

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Brace, William

  Gulland, John W.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Branch, James

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  MacVeigh Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Brigg, John

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Crae, George

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Killop, W.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Haworth, Arthur A.

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hazleton, Richard

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cleland, J. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Clough, William

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

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Massie, J.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hodge, John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Crooks, William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hudson, Walter

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Myer, Horatio

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Napier, T. B.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh. S.)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

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

  Jenkins, J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Duckworth, James

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  that existed under the Bill. He was very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not accept the reasonable Amendment of the hon. Member for Windsor. It was said that the interests of the landlord and the Agricultural Commissioners were the same, but he would point out that the interests of the landlord and the Agricultural Commissioners might be entirely different. The landlord's interest would be to get good cultivation for his farm; the Agricultural Commissioners' interest would be to extract the last penny from the tenant.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 41. (Division List No. 391.)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Shaekleton, David James

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Radford, G. H.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Snowden, P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Richardson, A.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somers't, E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Robinson, S.

  Ure, Alexander

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Vivian, Henry

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Rowlands, J.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  Sears, J. E.

  Wardle, George J.

  Seddon, J.

  Waring, Walter

  NOES.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fell, Arthur

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Forster, Henry William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Cibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Starkey, John R.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hills, J. W.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Collings, Rt Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, N.)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. James Mason and Mr. Abel Smith.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Nield, Herbert

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR moved to insert the words "except by agreement with the Agricultural Commissioners," affecting the prohibition imposed on the landholder without the consent of the Land Court to renounce his tenancy whilst there is a liability owing by him to the Commissioners. There was no need when the landlord and the Agricultural Commissioners were agreed to obtain the landlord's consent.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 14, line 21, to insert after the word that,' the words "except by agreement with the Agricultural Commissioners.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR HENRY CRAIK SIR HENRY CRAIK said that the landholder might agree with the Agricultural
  408
  Commissioners, but where did the landlord come in?
  MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR said that the landholder was entitled to renounce, and if the Agricultural Commissioners had no objection there was no reason for the matter to go further.
  MR. ABEL SMITHsaid that this would be a useful provision; they ought to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for inserting it and give him great credit for the concession.
  Question put, agreed to.
  MR. ABEL SMITH MR. ABEL SMITH moved an Amendment to Clause 18 which provides that the feuing of land for the general development of an estate shall be deemed to be a reasonable purpose for resuming a

  409
  holding. He desired to insert after the word "feuing" the words "or selling or letting on long leases." He thought it was reasonable that if a landlord wished to feu his land he should have the right of resumption. It was also reasonable that he should have a similar right if he wished to sell his land or to let it upon a long lease. He had always understood that the object of the Party opposite was to free land from the trammels under which it was supposed to suffer so that it should pass easily from hand to hand. It seemed to him, however, that a landlord if he wished to sell his land would, under this Bill, be in a very unfortunate position. He thought that if a landowner wished to sell he should be able to free the land. The same remarks applied to the landowner who wished to let the land on a long lease. An hon. Member said that the system of long leases was entirely unknown in Scotland, but some of his hon. friends representing Scotland said that their experience was not the same as that of the hon. Member. They said that there were many feus and long leases in Scotland, and although he did not desire to define the difference between a feu and a long lease, what he did desire was that if a landlord wished to sell or to let on a long lease he should not be prevented from doing so by the machinery of the Bill.
  SIR F. BANBURYseconded the Amendment, and said he did so if only for the purpose of obtaining some explanation of the problem of feuing. He believed that feuing in Scotland meant letting on a long lease, which extended so long as what we in England called the ground rent was paid. Under those circumstances he thought that once a feu had been created, the power to sell would go from the landlord into the hands of the owner of the feu, and if that was so the words proposed by his hon. friend seemed to him to be unnecessary. He gathered, however, that there was a difference of opinion among Scottish Members as to whether when land was feued it was let on a long lease or whether it was not. Some Scottish Members said it was and some said it was not.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 14, line 21, after the word 'feuing, to insert the words' or sale or letting on long lease."—(Mr. Abel Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. UREsaid he did not intend for the information of the hon. Baronet for the City of London to embark upon a discussion upon the law of Scotland in regard to feus, but he gathered that hon. Members were desirous to have some information on this and other Amendments. This clause dealt exclusively with the landlord's right to deal with his land, and no landlord was precluded from selling his estate merely because there were small landholders upon it, but it would never do to allow the landlord to turn off the small holders because he was going to sell his estate. Long leases did exist, but nobody granted them with a view to developing their estates. Long lenses in Scotland were for ninety-nine years or 999 years, but this was a very unusual form of tenure in Scotland, and it was by no means favoured, and no landlord had been known to develop his estate by long leasing. Feuing was much the better method. Feu-holding was practically equivalent to the sale of the property; that was to say, the feuar was in a sense the owner of the poperty, although the owner remained able to take back his land if the feuar broke the conditions of the feu. But to all intents and purposes the feuar was in possession of the property. He could pass on the feu to somebody else and build upon the land and utilise it in any manner he chose. Feuing was the favourite method of dealing with land, and would, he hoped, remain so, in spite of the observations of his hon. friend.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he was sure they were all very grateful for the explanation of the Solicitor-General, and, of course, they all deferred to the highest legal authority. This Bill referred back to the Crofters Act of 1886, and they had to look at that Act to see what the meaning of this measure was. Section 7 of the Crofters Act provided that the Crofters Commission might on the application of a landlord, having been satisfied

  411
  that he desired to resume possession for some reasonable purpose, and having regard to the holding and estate, allow him to resume possession on his finding land of equivalent value in the neighbourhood for the dispossessed crofters or paying them compensation. The Solicitor-General said it would be an intolerable thing that a landlord who wished to resume possession should turn out all the small landholders, but he could only, as he had shown, do so on the terms that he must find other holdings for the expropriated tenants or pay them compensation. If that was said with regard to feuing should it not also be reasonable for the purposes of sale? He did not think long leases were very popular in Scotland. The Scottish people were rather in favour of as much fixity of tenure as they could reasonably get at their own expense, and they generally preferred that to fixity of tenure as given by the Land Court. He had endeavoured to sweep away the only objection the hon. and learned Gentleman had to this Amendment, and he hoped he had been successful, and that the Amendment would now be accepted.
  MR. ABEL SMITHsaid the Solicitor-General had tried to persuade the House that it would be a very absurd thing for a landlord to wish to resume possession of land when he contemplated selling it. Rut it was very desirable in the public interest as well as in the interest of the landlord that he should have power to resume possession of land in the occupation of landholders, when he had an opportunity of selling a portion of his estate of which they were in possession, so as to be able to sell the land free of incumbrances. The hon. Member for Leith had called attention to a case earlier in the evening, where a sale had taken place of land on which certain crofters had fixity of tenure, with the result that after the completion of the sale the purchaser had to go to the Court and get the purchase money reduced because he had purchased the crofters as well as the land.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid that so far as he had gathered, the contention
  412
  of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that resumption for the purposes of sale would not be a reasonable cause for resumption.
  MR. URE MR. URE said it would not be resumption at all.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON said the Crofters Act clearly presupposed that the landlord might resume possession for the purpose of using the land himself. It would be a most unreasonable thing to sell an estate with small holders upon it, and it was only natural that a landowner before selling his estate should desire to clear the small holder off. If the view was right under the Crofters Act the landowner was entitled to do that if he gave the small holder suitable compensation or another holding. The point he wished to put particularly, however, was the case of a sale to, not a private owner, but a public authority. Let them take the case of a public authority which desired to purchase an estate for the purpose of making a reservoir. The landlord might be compulsorily made to sell. In such a case had he the power to resume under this Bill or not, and if he had not, had the public authority which purchased the land, power to clear the holders off?
  MR. URE MR. URE said it could not be denied that it would be a great disadvantage in certain circumstances to have small holders on an estate which it was desired to sell. But he could not admit that any owner who desired to sell his estate, either to a private owner or a public owner, was entitled to break the leases on that estate. This Bill gave the small holders fixity of tenure, and put them in the same position as if they occupied under a lease, and the landowner was not entitled to break the conditions of a lease except by arrangement and agreement with the leaseholder. Of course, if the land was sold compulsorily to a public authority, the small holder might have to go, but in the case of a compulsory sale to a public authority the sale was for the public benefit, and in cases of that kind private interest must give way.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK SIR HENRY CRAIK said they had had a very powerful argument from the Solicitor-General in favour of not disturbing for the sake of sale or any other object the tenants on an estate. The hon. and learned Gentleman had appealed to the usages and long traditions of Scotland in favour of the feus, but the more he had urged his argument the more clearly he had proved that feus were a production of Scotland, inherent in its soil, associated with its history, bound up with its agricultural progress, and things which everyone must admire. Clause 18 of this Bill allowed the setting aside of the new landholder and the landowner to resume on account of feuing; but it immediately afterwards seriously curtailed the right of such resumption. "For the general development of the estate" was a most uncertain and vague definition. One never knew where it might not be said that this was not for the general development of the estate. It might be that feus had been granted in a locality close to the sea, and the landowner under this Bill would be prevented from contributing to the general prosperity of the locality by establishing a good sized coast township owing to the fact that there were feus there with which that township would interfere. Why limit it in any way? Was there the least likelihood that the fen would be granted without good reason? And besides that, was it not in the interest of fixity of tenure that they should develop the growth of these peasant proprietors who were so likely to increase the general prosperity of the country? They should come as near as possible to proprietorship, and nothing came so near proprietorship, without involving the whole of the conditions of proprietorship contained in this Bill, as the Scottish feu. However good their new landholders might be, they were never so good as the feu-holder who had a moderate amount of rent to pay, who had no debts, who could dispose of his holding by bequest or inheritance, or in any way he pleased, without any of the conditions which attached under this Bill. Why not develop this holder, to whom the Solicitor-General had alluded as one of the great causes of the development of agriculture in Scotland? Why not encourage the feuar in every possible way by omitting
  414
  those vague and uncertain words "for the general development of the estate"? The feuars were the counterpart of the old peasant proprietors of England, they were indigenous to the Scottish soil, they had done more than anyone else in Scottish economics to develop Scottish small holders; they were free from all complications as to mutual claims and compensations to which the new landholders would be subject under this Bill; and he thought that they should remove every possible vagueness or curtailment of the right to resume, and let the small holder give way to one who was a better member of the body economic and a highly developed agriculturist. He therefore moved.
  SIE. F. BANBURYin seconding the Amendment, said that this question had been raised in Committee upstairs, and they had been told by the hon. Gentleman opposite that feuing was of great advantage to the people of Scotland; therefore he was in favour of doing something that would benefit the industry. It seemed to him that the clause had the intention of encouraging feuing by the inclusion of the words "general development of the estate," but it was so uncertain what would be considered "general development" that unless the people who were desirous of feuing were prepared to go through an endless course of litigation, no feuing would result, and therefore he was in favour of the omission of the words, as proposed by his hon. friend. It must be remembered that a person might become a small landholder owning 500 acres; they had been told that there were holdings of as much as 1,000 acres, of which the rent was £50 a year; therefore, the holder would become a small landholder under this Bill. He did not take such an example; he took a holding of 300 or 400 acres. There had been an interesting discussion in Committee in regard to the feuing holdings of Arran. It was said that the small landholders there made their rent by letting their houses in the summer season to visitors. They were told that the island of Arran was one of the most beautiful spots in the world, and it had been pointed out in Committee that unless they were very careful, hotels and villas might be erected there. It seemed to him that the small

  415
  landholder's farm of 200, 300, or 400 acres might, for the accommodation of visitors to Arran from Glasgow and elsewhere, be used for the erection of villas or hotels or cottages. If they took 300 or 400 acres out of an estate of 20,000 or 25,000 acres for the purpose of feuing, was it for the general development of the estate? He thought that a very pretty argument might arise before the Land Court, where he presumed counsel would be allowed to appear for the parties. Where a property was on the coast, or by the shores of a lake, it would be difficult to prove that 300 acres taken out of it for the purpose of feuing in the way he had described was for the general development of the estate, especially if the Solicitor-General for Scotland was in the case and took the side that it was not for the development of the estate. He thought that after hearing the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, were he a Judge of the Land Court he would find it very difficult to hold that it was for the general development of the estate. It was because they desired to limit all these sources of litigation as far as possible that he had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 14, line 28, to leave out the words 'for the general development of the estate.'"—(Sir Henry Craik.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. UREsaid the hon. Baronet bad supported the Amendment on the ground that it would diminish litigation. He had no unreasoning antipathy to litigation himself; he knew of no more admirable way of settling disputes. He regretted to add, however, that the practice before the Crofters Commission had been confined exclusively to members of the local bar. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow University had said that he ought to accept the Amendment because he had on a former occasion said that feuing was for the development of agriculture in Scotland. If he had ever said that feuing was for the development of
  416
  agriculture, then either he, or the hon. Gentleman who said he heard it, must have been suffering under temporary mental aberration. Feuing had never been the means of developing agriculture, but it was an admirable method of developing suburban villas, and far be it from him to say anything against that admirable system of land tenure which had been handed down to them through centuries. Suppose a landlord granted a single feu on a particular piece o£ ground, where he wished to have a villa, and that plot was occupied by a small landholder, was it to be said that he should be entitled to turn out that small holder? He thought that that would be a most objectionable thing. Why should the small landholder be turned out? Why should he have to make way for the feuar? What better was the feuar than the small landholder? Why should they give the small landholder security of tenure and then, having found that another man was desirous of building a villa on his land, immediately proceed to turn him out? If the landlord was desirous of having the small landholder's ground, it was his business to go to the small landholder and make an agreement under which for proper consideration the place could be taken over by the feuar. The words in the Bill were imported from the Crofters Act. It had been found during twenty years that there had been no difficulty in interpreting them. Their object was to enable a landlord to develop his estate and to make the best possible use of it. That was the whole object, he thought, of all the Land Acts, namely, to make the very best possible use of what had been called the national territory, Whatever view they took, they would not authorise the landlord to turn out the small landholder, in order to import the small feuar, but if the Land Court were satisfied that it would be for the general advantage of the estate that the landlord should be allowed to make a change by feuing, then, of course, the landlord would have to pay compensation to the small landholder whom he turned out.
  Question put, and negatived.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) moved to insert in line 28,

  417
  after the word "estate," the words "or raining or quarrying or other purposes connected therewith." Under the Crofters Acts the landlord was allowed to "enter upon the holding for any of the purposes following," and mining and quarrying were mentioned. They had not had my explanation from the law officers of the Crown whether that meant resuming possession of the holding. It seemed to him that the language used in the Bill which dealt with small holdings for England put the matter in plainer language, and showed that that was one of the purposes for which the landlord had power to resume possession. The question was whether the words in the Crofters Acts, as a matter of fact, gave power to resume possession, or a concurrent power to use the holding for the purpose of mining or quarrying. He would like the Solicitor-General's opinion as to whether or not the words he suggested would make the matter clearer. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 14, line 28, after the word 'estate,' to insert the words 'or mining or quarrying or other purposes connected therewith.'"—(Viscount Helmsley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. UREassured the noble Lord that the words he had proposed were quite unnecessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 14, line 28, to leave out the word 'shall,' and to insert the words 'or the occupation of a holding, being his only landed estate, by a landlord for the purpose of personally residing thereon, shall respectively.'"—(Mr. Ure.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. COCHRANEasked if there was any limitation as to the size of the holding. There was another point, and that was as to how this would work in case a man went out to Canada to make money and when he came back desired to resume his holding. What size of holding was referred to, and would this
  418
  proposal allow a large estate to be resumed possession of.
  MR. URE MR. URE said the Amendment applied necessarily to just the size of holdings to which the Act applied.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY VISCOUNT HELMSLEY said the history of this Amendment was interesting and instructive because it had been moved to protect the districts of Orkney and Shetland and Ross, and various other Highland districts. There was some discussion upon the question in Committee, and the interesting point was as to where the justice of it began and ended. By this Amendment the Government admitted that it was unjust to take a man's land when it was his only possession, but it might be in the public interest to take it. Why if it was just in one case should it be unjust in another! Why was it unjust to take a man's property if it happened to be 50 acres, and just to take 300 acres which the landlord wanted to farm himself? The Bill enabled such a farm to be cut up into small holdings for other people. He did not oppose the Amendment, but it would be interesting to have some justification of it from the Government. He thought the hon. Member representing Orkney and Shetland would have had a very unfortunate time if he had gone back to his constituents and told them that the Government had refused to listen to his representations. He hoped the House would remember the history of this Amendment and the reason why it had been introduced.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. J. F. MASON MR. J. F. MASON moved to leave out Clause 19 (Amendment of law as to bequest of holdings), which proposed to substitute the words "Land Court" for the word "sheriff" under Section 16 of the Act of 1886. Under Clause 21 the Land Court were empowered to delegate any of their powers to any one member, so that they could delegate the powers of the Sheriff to that one member, and there was no appeal except to the other members of the Court. When this question was raised in Committee they were told by the Solicitor General that the delegation would only apply to matters

  419
  of fact. Later on it was pointed out that this very clause necessitated or enabled the Land Court to delegate its powers upon matters of law. It was evident that the Land Court could delegate any or all of its powers. It seemed to him that the legal member of the Land Court would become the sheriff to all intents and purposes and take his place. What appeal would there be from one member of the Land Court? There was no appeal except to the other members of the Court. There was only one legal member of the Land Court, and if there was any appeal desired from his decision, it must be made to the other members of the Court because he had no right to take part in an appeal in which his own action was in question. Therefore, a matter of law would be referred to members of the Court who were not legal experts, and who were not qualified to decide. There was absolutely no appeal from the judgment of the legal member. He begged to move.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONin seconding the Amendment, said that in Committee he expressed his reluctance to part with the sheriff, because he regarded him as the last relic of justice left by this Bill. He was confirmed in that view by the statement of the hon. Member for Windsor. The hon. Member said that the Land Court could not be so easily "got at" as the sheriff. He would not pursue that argument because if he did he might be suspected of a double entendre. It was desirable that questions relating to the bequest of a tenant's right in a holding should be dealt with by a perfectly independent authority. The sheriff was a man in whom everybody had confidence.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 14, line 30, to leave out Clause 19."—(Mr. J. F. Mason.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. URE MR. URE said he did not share the views of the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs that in parting with the sheriff in this matter they were parting with the last relic of justice. They believed that the Land Court, consisting of, they hoped,
  420
  five intelligent men of probity, would be found an impartial Court, and he thought it was certain that their duties would be confined strictly to judicial and executive functions. Nor did the Government share the apprehensions of the hon. Member for Windsor, that difficult questions of law would be remitted to the Land Court. Under Section 16 of the Crofters Act the only questions that would probably arise were questions of pure fact, with which the Land Court would be much better able to deal than the sheriff. A question of law had never arisen under this section except once in twenty years. There was, however, an appeal on questions of law to the Court of Session on a case stated.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY VISCOUNT HELMSLEY said he could have wished that this Amendment had received more sympathetic consideration. It was all very well for the Solicitor-General to say that the Land Court would only have to decide questions of fact, but the questions arising under Section 16 of the Crofters Act were not questions of fact at all. They were questions of opinion. What the sheriff had to decide now, the Land Court, or one member of it, would have to decide in future. It seemed to him that all sorts of questions might arise in which great discrimination would have to be shown by the person who gave the decision. The sheriff, being an old established institution in Scotland, must command far greater confidence than any Land Court which the Government could propose to set up. They were told that the Crofters Act had been an immense success. If that was so, why should the sheriff be relieved of duties which he had discharged properly in the past? He could not understand why this point in the Crofters Act had been picked out as one in regard to which there should be a change.
  MR. COCHRANE MR. COCHRANE said the cases in which in the past there had been appeals from the Crofters Commission were those in which it was said there had been flaws in procedure. The vast complications arising in such cases were much more likely to be properly dealt with by the sheriff who was an expert in law than by members of the Land Court

  421
  who had no knowledge of law at all. So far as he knew, there was no fixed domicile for the Land Court. Having in view the rival claims of Glasgow and Edinburgh, the right hon. Gentleman had thought it unsafe to give any particular domicile to the Court, so that at present it was suspended, like Mahomet's coffin, betwixt earth and Heaven. Moreover they had not been told the names of the gentlemen who would compose the Land Court, although in all analogous Acts such names had either been embodied

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Duckworth, James

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Alden, Percy

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Elibank, Master of

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Erskine, David C.

  Kearley, George D.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Essex, R. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lambert, George

  Barnes, G. N.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Beale, W. P.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Beauchamp, E.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Bell, Richard

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lough, Thomas

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Benn, Sir J. Williams Devonp'rt

  Gill, A. H.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Glover, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Maclean, Donald

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Grant, Corrie

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Brace, William

  Gulland, John W.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  M'Callum, John M

  Branch, James

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Crae, George

  Brigg, John

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Killop, W.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harwood, George

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mallet, Charlee E.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hazleton, Richard

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launeeston)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Henderson, (Arthur Durham)

  Massie, J.

  Clough, William

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

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Clynes, J. R.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Corbett, CH (Sussex E. Grinst'd

  Higham, John Sharp

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hodge, John

  Morrell, Philip

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Crooks, William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Myer, Horatio

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hudson, Walter

  Napier, T. B.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Byde, Clarendon

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Jenkins, J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  or else the House had been made acquainted with them. This Land Court, without a location and without personnel, was the most mysterious body that could be conceived, and yet the Solicitor-General for Scotland blindly confided to it all the duties hitherto so ably performed by the sheriff.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 237; Noes, 54. (Division List No. 392.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sears, J. E.

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

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Seddon, J.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Shackleton, David James

  Wardle, George J.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

  Waring, Walter

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Watt, Henry A.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Weir, James Galloway

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradf ord, E.)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Radford, G. H.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  White, J. D (Dumbartonshire)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Snowden, P.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Richardson, A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thompson, TWH. (Somerset, E.)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough)

  Robinson, S.

  Tomkinson, James

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rogers, P. E. Newman

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Rose, Charles Day

  Ure, Alexander

  Rowlands, J.

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Russell, T. W.

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  NOES.

  Aeland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banbury, Sir Prederick George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gordon, J.

  Starkey, John R.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hills, J. W.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Younger, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Mason and Mr. Abel Smith.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Moore, William

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 14, line 33, at end, to insert the words 'and shall be read and construed accordingly with the necessary modifications.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. COCHRANEin moving to omit Clause 21 (Transfer of powers and duties) said he wished to ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he could give some more information in regard to the Land Court than the House had yet had. It would be very convenient if the hon. and learned Gentleman could give the names of
  424
  the gentlemen whom it was proposed to appoint to the Land Court, When the Irish Land Act of 1881 was under discussion Mr. Gladstone acceded to the request of the late Lord Randolph Churchill that the names of the Land Commission should be inserted in that Act. He wished to know where the Land Court was to be located. Was it to be situated in Edinburgh or in Glasgow? But even a bigger question than that was the formation of the Land Court and its powers. As he understood it the senior member was to be a barrister of ten years standing, and there were to be five other members selected for other reasons. They were to have full power

  425
  and jurisdiction to hear and decide all matters of law and fact without appeal. Their powers were of a very drastic character, and no other Court had power to interfere with the proceedings of the Land Court. It was true that they might state a special case for the opinion of another Court on a point of law which arose, but that was the only way of appeal. The Court might delegate their powers to any one of its members, and in that case the only appeal was to the Land Court itself, three members of which might form a quorum. He thought he had said sufficient to show that the constitution of the Land Court and its powers required some explanation. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 15, line 27, to omit Clause 21."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Question proposed, "That the words of the clause down to the word 'may,' in page 15, line 36, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR said it would be premature at this stage to announce who would be nominated members of the Land Court. As to the location of the Court, he had no reason to suppose that it would be other than at Edinburgh. Explaining the Amendments appearing on the Paper, the right hon. Gentleman said there was no appeal from the decisions of the Land Court on question of fact, but there was a discretion given to the Court to state a case on points of law if they thought fit. In response to criticisms in Committee, he now proposed to modify this by providing that the Land Court "shall on the request of any party if they consider the request reasonable" state a case on points of law. Another of the Amendments which he had put down would enact that three members of the Land Court should form a quorum. A further Amendment referred to the subsection giving a power to review by three or more members of the Land Court any order or determination arrived at by one or two delegated members, in regard to which he proposed to provide that such Court of Review, if consisting of three members, should
  426
  include, "not more than one member who was a party to such order or determination." By this means the Government provided that there should always be a majority of the Court of Appeal who had not heard the case in the first instance.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK SIR HENRY CRAIK said his objection to have this proposal was that if one man gave a decision he was pledged to the decision which he had already given, and the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland practically amounted to this, that two members of the Court of Review would be balanced against another member.
  MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR said he had explained that the Court should consist of three members not more than one of whom was a party to the original determination.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK SIR HENRY CRAIK said it was not a Court of Appeal. In that case the Court of Appeal would be equally divided. He desired that in that Court there should be a majority. To begin with, they should have a majority without any prejudice one way or the other. He, however, understood that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to meet that objection.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY VISCOUNT HELMSLEY said this was the first time that the question of the Land Court had come up for discussion in the House. It was not discussed in Committee and was closured on Report. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think he had met their views in the matter by the first Amendment he had down upon the Paper. But the right hon. Gentleman was to consider the words of the Irish Act of 1887 and see whether they could not be adopted. He would also like to know what reason the right hon. Gentleman had for putting in this particular form of words instead of "unless the action was frivolous or vexatious," which in his opinion, were much better words. The Court of Appeal were quite likely to start with the assumption that an appeal from their decision was unreasonable, because if they had not thought their decision was reasonable they would not have given it.
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid he was advised that the words he had proposed had exactly the same significance and were proper for this purpose. He reminded the hon. Member that he gave no pledge to accept any particular form of words.

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kelley, George D.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Alden, Percy

  Elibank, Master of

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Essex, R. W.

  Lambert, George

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lamont, Norman

  Astbury, John Meir

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Barnes, G. N.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lough, Thomas

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Freeman-Thomas. Freeman

  Lupton, Arnold

  Beale, W. P.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Beauchamp, E.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs

  Bell, Richard

  Gill, A. H.

  Maclean, Donald

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Glover, Thomas

  Macpherson, J. T.

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Grant, Corrie

  M'C'rae, George

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Killop, W.

  Brace, William

  Gulland, John W.

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

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Branch, James

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Brigg, John

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Harms worth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harwood, George

  Massie, J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hazleton, Richard

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morrell, Philip

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cleland, J. W.

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

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Clough, William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Murray, James

  Clynes, J. R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Myer, Horatio

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Napier, T. B.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hodge, John

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Basset-law)

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cox, Harold

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Crooks, William

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jenkins, J.

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Duckworth, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  He pledged himself to meet the spirit of the words.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 258; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 393.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  Snowden, P.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Richardson, A.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Robinson, S.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Rowlands, J.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

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

  Russell, T. W.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Ure, Alexander

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sears, J. E.

  Verney, F. W.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Seddon, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Seely, Colonel

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

  Shackleton, David James

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

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

  Walton, Joseph (Bamsley)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wardle, George J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Waring, Walter

  NOES.

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gordon, J.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hills, J. W.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John R.

  Cave, George

  Keswick, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Moore, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Abel Smith and Viscount Helmsley.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  And, it being half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 5th August, successively to put forthwith the Question upon any Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 15, line 36, after the word 'fit,' to insert the words 'and shall on the request of any party if they consider the request reasonable.'"
  "In page 16, line 3, after the word 'case,' to insert the words 'without prejudice to the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 1886.'"
  430
  "In page 16, line 13, at beginning, to insert 'the words 'Three members of the Land Court shall be a quorum: Provided that.'"
  "In page 16, line 20, after the word 'Court,' to insert the words 'including where such court of review consists of three members not more than one member who was a party to such order or determination'"
  "In page 16, line 35, to leave out from the word 'holding,' to end of line 36, and to insert, '(3) A person shall not be hell an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder under this Act in respect of.'"
  "In page 17, line 1, after the word 'land,' to insert the words '(exclusive of any common pasture or grazing land held or to be held therewith).'

  431
  "In page 17, line 5, at end of line, to insert the words 'the home farm of any estate or of.'
  "In page 17, line 8, at end of line to insert the words 'being permanent grass park held for the purposes of a business or calling not primarily agricultural or pastoral, including that of butcher, cattle-dealer, and the like, or.'
  "In page 17, line 23, at end, to add the words, '(4) A person shall not be admissible to registration as a new holder under this Act in respect of any land referred to in Paragraphs (b), (d), (e), (g), or (i), or, except by agreement, in respect of any land referred to in Paragraphs (a), (c), (f), or (h) of the immediately preceding subsection.'
  "In page 17, line 24, to leave out the words 'the immediately preceding sub-section,' and to insert the words 'this Act.'
  "In page 17, line 26, after the word 'holding,' to insert the words '(whether by agreement or otherwise in either case).'"
  "In page 17, line 31, to leave out from the word 'leaseholder,' to the first word 'of,' in line 32, and to insert the words 'within the meaning.'"
  Amendments agreed to.

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Glover, Thomas

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clough, William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Alden, Percy

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Grant, Corrie

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cooper, G. J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gulland, John W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Crooks, William

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Barnes, G. N.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harwood, George

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Bell, Richard

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Bellairs, Carlyon

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

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

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Elibank, Master of

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Erskine, David C.

  Hodge, John

  Brace, William

  Essex, R. W.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Branch, James

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Brigg, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Ferens, T. R.

  Hudson, Walter

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ffrench, Peter

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Findlay, Alexander

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Jenkins, J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gill, A. H.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 18, line 5, at end, to insert the words, 'The provisions of Section 2 of this Act shall extend to and include joint-tenants being existing crofters, existing yearly tenants, or qualified leaseholders; but not more than one person shall be registered as a new holder in respect of any holding and (without prejudice to the continuance of a joint tenancy through statutory successors) where at any time after the commencement of this Act a holding is held by a single landholder or a holding which has been held in joint tenancy ceases to be so held it shall not be competent for more than one person to be a landholder in respect of such holding.
  "Except so far as may be inconsistent with any express provision of this Act the tenancy of a landholder under the Landholders Acts shall, in the case of every existing crofter, be deemed to be in all respects a continuance of his tenancy as a crofter under the Crofters Acts, and all contracts and other deeds and documents shall be read and construed accordingly.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 63. (Division List No. 391.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Napier, T. B.

  Snowden, P.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock) s

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Kelley, George D.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil Williams

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lambert, George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Tomkinson, James

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ure, Alexander

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pollard, Dr.

  Verney, F. W.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

  Vivian, Henry

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Walker, H. De B. (Leicester)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Luttrell, Hugh Fowness

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wardle, George J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Waring, Walter

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richardson, A.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Watt, Henry A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Weir, James Galloway

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  M'Crae, George

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  M'Killop, W.

  Robinson, S.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Williams, Llewelvn (Carmarth'n

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rowlands, J.

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Russell, T. W.

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

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Massie, J.

  Seddon, J.

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

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Montgomery, H. G.

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Morrell, Philip

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Murray, James

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Myer, Horatio

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  NOES.

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gordon, J.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Helmsley, Viscount.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, J. W.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Cave, George

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Starkey, John R.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Younger, George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Meysey-Thompson. E. C.

  Fell, Arthur

  Moore, William

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Nield, Herbert

  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 19, line 36, to leave out the words 'immediately before,' and insert the word 'at.'"
  "In the Schedule, page 21, column 3, line 24, to leave out the word 'legatees,' and insert the word 'Act.'
  "In the Schedule, page 21, column 3, line 26, at end, to insert the words 'section twenty-four from "and it," to end of section.'"—[Mr. Sinclair.]
  Amendments agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 307.]

  RENFREWSHIRE UPPER DISTRICT (EAST WOOD AND MEARNS) WATER BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  As amended, considered.
  MR. CLELAND*MR. CLELAND (Glasgow, Bridgeton) moved an Amendment to provide that certain lands or premises should, for the purposes of the domestic water rate to be imposed and levied, be held to be one-fourth of the annual value thereof entered in the valuation roll. He said he did not propose the Motion of which he had given notice, that the Bill be read that day three months, because he felt that when a Bill had been impartially and exhaustively considered by Committees of both Houses it would not be respectful for a Member of this House to take that course, however strongly he felt on the question as representing a portion of the district which was likely to be prejudicially affected by the Bill. For himself he was prepared to accept the decision of the Committee upstairs, and he was not animated by any hostility to the principle of the Bill, which was that the county council of Renfrew was the body which ought to have the water supply in their hands. What he asked was to add to the Bill a new clause which would carry out the existing, he might say the invariable, practice in regard to the rating of railways and tramways, canals, or basins of canals, etc. In the case of drawing out a scheme of a water district such as this, there were two methods of procedure, by which the promoters might elect to make good their case. They might proceed under the Public Health Act, and appear
  436
  before the sheriff with their evidence. The sheriff would then delimit the area which he considered a proper and suitable area for water supply; or they might elect to proceed by Act of Parliament or Provisional Order. The promoters of this Bill had chosen the latter course in their wisdom. In England tramways did not pay anything in the nature of water rates, but in Scotland a precedent had grown up by which tramways were rated at 25 per cent. of the annual value thereof entered into the valuation roll. Attempts had been made to equalise the law of Scotland with that of England, but those whom he represented did not seek to do that. Their desire was to preserve unbroken the practice of rating tramways which passed through their districts at a fourth of the value appearing in the valuation roll. The precedents for the clause which he proposed were in the Borough Police Act, the Dunfermline Act, the Melrose District Water Order, the East Stirlingshire Water Order, etc. It would, he thought, require very strong arguments before these precedents could be overthrown by a private Bill. He had been told that the Renfrewshire Comity Council had treated the tramways of Glasgow in an exceedingly generous way, by charging them no way-leave; but that example had also been followed by Dumbartonshire and Lanarkshire. Through the excellent electric tramway service those counties had reaped enormous benefit, because it had taken the people out of the crowded cities and placed them in the surrounding counties. They also benefited because the corporation maintained the whole of the tramway track and eighteen inches on either side, which was no small consideration. The whole community had reaped the benefit, including Glasgow, which he regretted to say had more congestion of population than any other city in Great Britain. In Glasgow the congestion in the densely populated districts had been relieved, more especially in the east of the city, where thousands had been taken out of the slums and planted amid the fresh air of the surrounding counties. When a county council came forward with a proposal to penalise a municipality and a private company by putting on them

  437
  75 per cent. additional rating value, that county council ought to make out a very strong case indeed. The case for the county council was that it followed the precedent of the Public Health Act of 1891. That was with regard to rating, but he wished to point out that there was one significant exception, and it was that for the first time they made an exemption for rating purposes for all sporting lands within this water district area. If they had to choose between relieving tramways and locomotion and the taxing of sporting lands he would tax the latter to their fullest extent, in order to relieve congestion in the urban districts. That this additional 75 per cent. of rateable value would seriously affect the development of tramway systems in the future and militate against their extension there could be no two opinions amongst those who had had any practical experience. He begged to move.
  MR. BARNESsaid that after the full statement of the case made by the hon. Member for the Bridgeton division it was unnecessary for him to detain the House for more than two or three minutes in seconding this Amendment. The precedents of other undertakings had been quoted, but no reference had been made to the precedent in this Bill under which it was sought to exempt sporting lands. He did not make any point of that further than drawing the contrast. He asked the House to note that an attempt was being made to buy the county interests and an onslaught was contemplated upon Glasgow and elsewhere. In addition to penalising all the undertakings which the hon. Member for the Bridgeton division had enumerated, it also penalised the poorer classes of the community, and it was to that aspect of the question that he invited the attention of the House. They had heard a great deal about the housing of the working classes, and there was a general concurrence of opinion amongst social reformers that one of the best methods of dealing with the problem was to have the greatest possible facilities for communication between one part of a town and another. Anything that put an additional burden upon the tramway systems and prevented
  438
  the freest possible outlet being provided for the people in the heart of our great cities was a step in the wrong direction. The Glasgow Corporation were willing by this Amendment to be assessed up to one-quarter of their value, a practice which had been sanctioned by Parliament ever since 1848, throughout the country. If the precedent of assessing tramways at their full value was set up in this Bill it would have a most injurious effect upon tramway undertakings not only in Glasgow but in other places. He asked the House to prevent this Bill being passed in its present form, and he hoped the decision of the Committee would be reversed.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 8, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that the annual value of the following lands or premises shall, for the purposes of the domestic water rate to be imposed and levied under this Act, be held to be one-fourth of the annual value thereof entered in the valuation roll, viz.:—(1) All lands and premises used exclusively as a canal or basin of a canal or towing path for the same, or as a railway or tramway, excepting the stations, depots, and buildings which shall be assessable to the same extent as other lands and premises within the limits of supply; (2) All water works, gas works, electric power or electric supply works, and underground or other pipes of any water company, gas company, electric power or electric supply company, corporation, or commissioners; and (3) All mines, minerals, and quarries.'"—(Mr. Cleland.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MAJOR SEELYsaid that as the Chairman of the Committee which considered this matter, he hoped the House would pardon his intervention. It was claimed that the Borough Police Act provided a precedent for this Amendment. Apparently the hon Member who made that statement was not acquainted with the fact that the whole point was that there was a completely different system of rating in counties and in burghs in Scotland. The Committee in both Houses had to pay attention to what was the general law in Scotland, and therefore no new precedent was sot up in this Bill at all, because it followed the precedent of the law of the land. Under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, all

  439
  lands and hereditaments were assessable at their full rate. The precedents of Lanarkshire (Middle District), Melrose, and the Dunfermline Act had been quoted. In the Lanarkshire case no county council had a locus before a Committee of this House, and they were obliged to agree to any terms that might have been imposed upon them by the parties with whom they were dealing. The same argument applied to the precedents of Melrose and Dunfermline. The point at issue was that the tramways should be rated at one-fourth. It was plain that when a poor county came before this House, possibly opposed by a very wealthy corporation, they had a serious responsibility thrown upon them. Nobody could deny that Glasgow had carried out these matters exceptionally well, notably their water affairs. The Corporation of Glasgow were fully entitled to oppose this clause, but they were not entitled to say it created or established a precedent. On the contrary it was in accordance with precedent. If any county of Scotland came before Parliament and asked for a water scheme they were entitled under the Public Health Act of 1897 to have these tramways rated to the full. With the question of whether it was fair the Committee had nothing to do. They had only to consider what the Public Health Act of Scotland said. In this Bill he respectfully suggested that the House had only to consider the general law of Scotland. This question did not rest on the decision of the Committee of which he had the honour to be the Chairman. They had the unanimous decision also of a Committee of the other place, and none of the public departments had anything to say in opposition to this or any other clause in the Bill. It was suggested that this matter was not brought before the Committee, but that Committee sat for eight days and no one could dispute the fact that the Bill was very fully considered, and that this part was one of those most fully considered. In addition to this there was the Renfrew County Council itself and the district council also which were unanimous in their support of the scheme, as being a just scheme. With regard to the clause as to sporting rights and the suggestion that the interests of the poor would be
  440
  jeopardised by the sporting rights, he might mention that there were no sporting rights and that that question was never raised in Committee by the opponents of the Bill. If the opposition to the sporting rights was seriously considered he thought the clause was one that should not stand. He did not strike it out, because the Committee were not asked to do so. He thought the House would be wise to strike it out because it was valueless and was only put in because of an old precedent. With regard to the question of principle raised by the hon. Member opposite that if the tramways were rated at their full value the outward flow from the city to the suburbs would be checked and overcrowding increased, there was an answer to that. The first was that the Secretary for Scotland might possibly undertake that this should be dealt with in a general law. But with regard to specific cases the arguments were all the other way. The whole problem which the Committee had to decide was the question of levels—the question of getting the water to the higher level where there was a shortage of supply. Glasgow towards the north rose more or less sharply; therefore, though there was an ample supply from Loch Katrine in the levels of 200 feet, there was a shortage in the higher level. The Glasgow Corporation had recognised this by bringing forward a very reasonable and proper proposal to supplement their scheme by making a high level supply for a certain village called Eaglesham, which was at a level of 600 feet. If they threw out the Bill, which he thought might be expected if this Amendment were passed—he might be wrong, but he had been told so, although this was a very small sum to Glasgow, £550, yet it made a great difference to a poor county like Renfrew—if they threw the Bill out, they would be preventing the expansion of Glasgow in the best way; they would confine it to the low-lying levels. The object of the Committee was to have regard to the general law and public policy. They had followed the general law in the matter of rating. That was not in dispute; and in regard to public policy, he and his colleagues on the Committee believed that by securing a supply at the high level of 750 feet as compared with 200 feet

  441
  they would enable the district to spread out naturally and normally, without being concentrated in the lower levels, It would be improper to urge the House to decide one way or the other, but he had given what information he could in regard to a complicated matter, which it was difficult to understand without the aid of the maps and plans which were before the Committee. He trusted the House would consider the difficulty of conducting private Bill procedure unless some regard was paid to evidence given on oath. The Committee were quite unanimous in their decision, and in the highest interests of Glasgow as well as of the county of Renfrew they sincerely believed that the House would be acting rightly in passing the Bill.
  MR. WOODsaid the hon. and gallant Gentleman had sympathetically compared the poor county council of Renfrew with the rich corporation of Glasgow, but the House would be less sympathetic when they learned that the poor county council had had an opportunity of obtaining water from Glasgow at a rate of 10d. in the £, but had preferred to obtain water for itself at a rate of 1s. 6d. in the £. It was a singular fact that the majority of the ratepayers in Renfrewshire or in the district concerned, representing the majority of the rateable value, were opposed to this Bill. So he thought they might dismiss that argument and deal with the question of rating on its merits. He entirely agreed that this matter raised a great question of public policy. Every Member of the House agreed that one of the most important means of dealing with overcrowding in our great cities lay in the development of means of communication, and for his part he thought it would be extremely unfortunate if they were to place excessive rates or taxes upon means of communication. In the normal condition of affairs they had to bear quite sufficiently heavy burdens, and there was no doubt that if they increased the burden of rating on tramways, those tramway undertakings would be discouraged. The Corporation of Glasgow, who had done, so much to relieve the congestion of that city, and to carry prosperity into the counties outside,
  442
  would be discouraged in that work. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby division had spoken as if he were bound by the Public Health Act. That was not the case. The county council of Renfrewshire might if they had chosen have proceeded under the Public Health Act, but they had introduced a private Bill. His hon. friend who moved the Amendment had pointed out that all the precedents of private Bill legislation in Scotland were in favour of his contention, and against the decision of the Committee. In many cases there was no charge whatever made on tramways for water. He hoped the House appreciated that this was not a question of rating for Poor Law purposes, but for water purposes. The precedents were not in favour of charging tramways on their full value, but of charging them an a fourth of the value for public supply; and in a great many places there was no charge at all on tramways for domestic supply. In this instance the tramways were of immense benefit not only to Glasgow but to Renfrewshire. What they were dealing with was a new charge put on, not under the Public Health Act, but under a private Bill promoted by the Corporation who wished to purchase certain waterworks and set up a water supply for themselves. They declined to take the cheaper supply offered by Glasgow. Surely that was a matter which the House would consider on its merits. Though the Public Health Act had been cited by the Chairman of the Committee, he had quoted no precedents under that Act. He hoped the House would not put on the tramways a burden for which there was no precedent. Glasgow had taken an extremely moderate attitude in regard to this matter. They were willing to pay a certain amount in respect of the waterworks and the tramways; they were willing to pay the public water rate and also the domestic water rate on a fourth of the value. But they were unwilling to pay the domestic rate on the total value and he hoped the House would not approve of an excessive rating being put upon means of communication.
  THE CHAIRMAN or WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. EMMOTT,)said it

  443
  was one of the great difficulties in discussing matters of this kind in the House that side issues were always introduced, and the hon. Member for St. Rollox had mentioned that the Glasgow Corporation had offered to supply this water at the rate of 10d. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool would correct him if he was wrong, but his information was that Glasgow offered a supply at 1s. 6d. in the first place. When that offer was rejected they made a second offer that in a certain part of the area they would supply the water at cost price, and when that was in turn refused they ultimately said they would supply it at 10d. The Committees of both Houses having heard all the evidence decided to reject all their offers.
  MAJOR SEELY MAJOR SEELY said perhaps it would be a convenience to the House if he stated that the offer to supply the water at the 10d. rate only applied to the most favourable part of the district. It only applied to a portion of the district and not to the high levels.
  MR. EMMOTTbelieved it was applied to a comparatively small area. The hon. Members for Bridgeton and Blackfriars had put their case very eloquently, and the House had heard it stated in a very advantageous form, but he rose to ask the House to support the finding of the Committee in this matter. The Committee of this House sat for eight days and the Committee of the other House sat for seven days, and the finding in each case was absolutely unanimous. This was not a case of a Bill being sent down to Scotland, and the decision being arrived at by the casting vote of the Chairman. There had been two inquiries and there had been no dissentient voice in regard to the findings of the Committee. The Bill had been explained by the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division, and it only remained for him to call attention to the actual Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Bridgeton. The proposal was that railways and mines and quarries were to be relieved as well as tramways. As to the railways, the Caledonian Railway was the principal railway affected, and was a strong supporter of the Bill. That disposed of
  444
  railways. As to mines, minerals, and quarries, hon. Members were misinformed. He believed that if such a course as was suggested by the Amendment were adopted it would create a disastrous state of things in such counties as Lanarkshire and Linlithgowshire. Such a plan would relieve the rich men at the expense of the poor men, and when the hon. Member for Blackfriars dwelt so eloquently upon the effect of the Amendment on the housing question he must point out that his proposal would relieve the rates of Glasgow and add to the rates of Renfrewshire. He was glad to know that the Glasgow tramways were a profitable undertaking and that the profits went in relief of rates, but that fact did not give them a claim for relief outside the City boundary. He concluded as he had begun by appealing to the House to support the finding of the Committee.
  MR. A. C. CORBETTsaid the Chairman of Committees had made a statement to the effect that the Glasgow tramways made a profit which went in reduction of rates. That was not so, as the profit went to a reserve fund. The hon. Member who was Chairman of the Committee had alluded to Renfrewshire six times as a poor county. Renfrewshire was not a poor county, but on the contrary it was exceedingly prosperous.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he alluded to Renfrewshire as a poor county relatively to Glasgow, and while this matter was of great importance to Renfrewshire it was of little importance to Glasgow.
  MR. A. C. CORBETT MR. A. C. CORBETT said that while in the aggregate Glasgow was rich, there were parts of the city where there was a great deal of poverty. He held that the poor ratepayers had to be considered as much as the wealthier who lived in adjoining districts. Allusion had been made to the fact that different authorities had been arrayed against Glasgow, and mention had been made of the House of Lords. But hon. Members knew very well that when the opponents of a Bill went before a Committee of the House of Lords or a Committee of this House for the purpose of having it thrown out,

  445
  they were advised not to discuss the clauses. When Glasgow was defeated on the main issue, the clauses were not discussed. It had been said that the Public Health Act governed this question of rating, but he would point out that the provisions of that statute had not been followed in this case. In certain circumstances special arrangements could be made for a limited rate under that Act, but the promoters of this scheme deliberately chose not to avail themselves of the provisions of the Public Health Act. They came to Parliament and threw upon it the responsibility for their proposal, and that was a responsibility which Parliament could not refuse to accept, in passing or rejecting the proposal. Reference had been made from time to time by hon. Members in all parts of the House to the housing problem and the necessity of easier communication. When a municipality carried tramways beyond its boundaries it made a considerable sacrifice because it carried the population beyond its rating area. There was, therefore a certain sacrifice of rates, and if in addition to that Parliament was going for the first time to rate tramways upon their whole rateable value it would do a great deal to prevent that free expansion of the population which had so much to do with the health and happiness of the community.
  MR. WATT (Glasgow, College)in supporting the Amendment, stated that at the present moment the tramways in the district of Renfrewshire with which they were dealing did not pay any water rate whatever, either public or domestic. To have that settled practice-altered, by a Committee consisting of four Members of the House of Lords and four Members of the House of Commons—good men though they might be—was unusual. There had been twenty-four Acts passed by this House during the last forty years, and in none of them was there provision for the rating of tramways for domestic water supply on the full assessable value. If the tramways did not use water, it would, for that reason, be unfair that the tramways in Renfrewshire belonging to the City of Glasgow should be rated to even a quarter of their assessable value. It was
  446
  unfair that they should be so rated. It was more than unfair; it was absurd in the highest degree that they should be rated on the full assessable value as this Bill suggested. Another point had relation to the question of the waterworks which were to be acquired by the county of Renfrew and which at the present moment were exempted by statute from rating. He ventured to think that this was a most important factor. Under this Bill Gorbals Waterworks, which belonged to the Corporation of Glasgow, and which were situated in Renfrewshire, were to be rated to their full assessable value. These two facts, if borne in mind by the House, should lead Members to support the City of Glasgow.
  MR. J. W. WILSONsaid he did not rise to discuss the merits or demerits of the question. The hon. Member had truly said that the House was responsible for Bills which came before Committees, but it should be remembered that a Committee to which a Bill was referred called evidence, examined witnesses on oath, and went exhaustively into the questions involved. He submitted that if this House was going to set itself up as a judicial authority to revise the decisions, then the kudos and honour for the energy and time which hon. Members gave to the work upstairs would be in some measure lost, and the same attention would not be given in future to the business of Committees. The system had been often criticised, but no one had been able to devise a better. He ventured to submit that the House should think more than twice before it revised a decision like this. They had heard of decisions being revised. They had heard of questions discussed on Second Reading; they had heard of decisions reversed when the Committee upstairs had been divided, or when the respective Houses had been divided; but when they had a question on which two Committees had sat and reported unanimously he submitted that they ought to weigh the evidence very carefully before adopting any decided course. Above all, he would point out to the House that any decision they might come to which overthrew the decision of a Committee upstairs would tend more and more to invite a perfunctory

  447
  discussion at a late hour of the night on a carefully thought out procedure in Committee. In his opinion that was not a wholesome or a responsible course for the House to take. In the present case they had had eight Members, sitting in Committee on the Bill—four from the House of Commons and four from another place. So far the opposition had largely come from the City of Glasgow, and he ventured to submit this question to the House: Who were the more likely to come to a dispassionate decision—the eight Members of the Committee or the representatives of the large Corporation of Glasgow which was earning profits on the trams running into the district which the present Water Bill concerned. He only wished in saying these few words to remind the House of the course it had taken in the past and of the course it would have to take in the future.
  MR. McCRAEsaid he would not have intervened in the debate had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. The hon. Member had represented this as a dispute between the City of Glasgow and the District of Renfrew. That was hardly a fair position to put to the House, because many Members would have interposed in the debate had it not been for the fact that the hour was rather late, and that Glasgow was entitled first of all to express its view on the matter. He rose for the purpose of saying that he thought it would be very unfortunate if the House should allow its reluctance—a reluctance which he fully appreciated—to interfere with the decision of any Committee to blind it to the fact that if it did not accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow it would establish a principle of great importance. It would mean that for the first time, Parliament was going deliberately to say that tramways were to be rated in Scotland at their full value. He endorsed what had been said by the Chairman of the Committee as to the Police Act. But the invariable practice in Scotland was that tramways were only rated at one-fourth of their value in the terms of the Amendment of his hon. friend. If it was said that a different practice obtained in the counties it was the fact for this
  448
  reason: that up to a recent date there had been no tramways in the counties. The tramways system had been comfined to boroughs. In every Act of Parliament except one, which was mentioned by the Chairman of Committees, where a private company was running tramways, Parliament had laid it down as a general practice that tramways should only be rated at one-fourth of their value. If the House that night took the step which was proposed it would have very serious consequences and all future legislation would be affected. Supposing the Amendment were agreed to, the House would not be interfering at all with the decision of the Committee on the main principle of the Bill. The principle concerned a waterworks system for Renfrew. The Committee had conceded that, and on the main principle the supporters of the Amendment did not take exception to the decision which was come to upstairs. All that they said was that the rating clause ought to be in conformity with the general law and practice of Scotland.
  MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR said that this was not a Party question in any sense of the word, and it was not his intention to go into the merits of the Bill. The Chairman of the Committee intervened as a representative of the department in some sense responsible for private Bill legislation in Scotland to indicate any views which the department might hold on the matter. He wished to say at once that naturally, as Secretary for Scotland, he was fully alive to and shared the admiration which had been expressed for the municipal work of the Corporation of Glasgow. In no department of that work was Glasgow more justly well known than in its various housing reforms, with which the question of tramways as a means of transit was most intimately connected. It was the good fortune of Glasgow to be exceptionally favoured in its relations with neighbouring local authorities. With the consent of those authorities it had extended its tramways in various directions with great enterprise and energy. It was of great importance—and he wished to impress this fact on those who were interested in Glasgow—that Glasgow should continue to be on good terms

  449
  with these neighbouring local authorities. As the House would very well understand he was not able on this Amendment to make any definite statement in regard to legislation. The whole question of local taxation was inquired into in great detail by a Royal Commission some years ago, and a mass of evidence was at the disposal of any Government which desired to take up the task of acting upon it. There might be a good enough case for a change in the law; but what he had to observe on the present occasion was that the Amendment asked the House to sanction a departure from the general law in what, after all, was a Private Bill. It was true, as had been urged during the debate, that in two or three cases a departure from the general law had been obtained by consent; but none the less, it seemed to him that it would be a very serious thing for the House to assent to the

  AYES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hazleton, Richard

  Radford, G. H.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Branch, James

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Brigg, John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rowlands, J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kelley, George D.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Sears, J. E.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Shackleton, David James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Corbett, T. L (Down, North)

  Maclean, Donald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Crosfield, A. H.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Wardle, George J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Crae, George

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Killop, W.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Maddison, Frederick

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mallet, Charles E.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Cleland and Mr. Barnes.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

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

  NOES.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cave, George

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Emmott, Alfred

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Beale, W. P.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Clough, William

  Forster, Henry William

  Birrell, Et. Hon. Augustine

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Gordon, J.

  Amendment. It would attach great weight—a weight proportionate to the importance of the city of Glasgow among the municipalities of the country—to a precedent, and possibly that would be done on insufficient evidence. It would be giving that weight to a precedent in contradiction of the result arrived at after a careful examination of the Bill by two Parliamentary Committees. He thought if he might respectfully suggest it to the House that too much weight could not be given to the advice tendered to the House by the Chairman of the Committee, and for his own part he must support the Committee in the decision at which it had arrived.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 71; Noes, 112. (Division List No. 395.)

  Grant, Corrie

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Moore, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murray, James

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Nield, Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hills, J. W.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

  Hodge, John

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Verney, F. W.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Waring, Walter

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robinson, S.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Russell, T. W.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, WR.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lough, Thomas

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lupton, Arnold

  Seely, Colonel

  Younger, George

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. J. W. Wilson and Mr. Godfrey Baring.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

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

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John-

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  MR. LAIDLAW MR. LAIDLAW (Renfrewshire, E.) moved an Amendment to limit the rate all over the area to 1s. 6d. The Bill, if passed in its present form, now confined the limit of 1s. 6d. to those supplied by the Busby Water Company. It would go very hard on those in outlying districts, particularly farms, if they should be rated at anything up to 3s. It was only just and fair that the rate of 1s. 6d. should equally apply over the whole area.
  The Amendment was not seconded.
  MR. MORTON*MR. MORTON (Sutherland) moved in page 35, line 33, to leave out from the word "grounds" to the end of the section. That, he said, would strike out words which seemed to give some special favours to sporting rights. The Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill had explained that this would not matter very much financially, but the point he (Mr. Morton) wished to make was that it might be made use of as a precedent. He did not want to do any harm to people with sporting rights, but they ought not to have any special favours, and there ought not to be inserted in any Bill any clause which would create a precedent of that kind in any way. The Chairman of the Committee, before whom the Bill came upstairs, had said distinctly that so far as he knew if
  452
  the words had been proposed to be struck out in Committee that would have been done. At that hour he would not detain the House further, but would move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 35, line 33, to leave out the word" from the word 'grounds,' to the end of section. '"—(Mr. Morton.)
  MAJOR SEELYsaid the words were not essential to the success of the water scheme. They were only part of word" taken from other Acts. The House would be well advised to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  IRISH LAND (No. 2.) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. MOOREsaid the Second Reading of that Bill had been moved without a single word of explanation from the Minister responsible. If it was really of the importance the Memorandum

  453
  stated it ought not to come before them at that hour. He and his friends had come to an arrangement with the Government that, when the Bill came up for Second Reading, they would not go to a division. In return for that they were promised that adequate opportunity would be given for discussion of their views. How far the Patronage Secretary considered he was carrying out that arrangement by bringing the Bill forward in that manner he (Mr. Moore) did not know.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: I did not give any undertaking.
  MR. MOORE: I do not suppose the Minister in charge will deny that there was an understanding with the Member for South Dublin.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): I heard nothing whatever of any undertaking.
  MR. MOOREsaid that perhaps it was the Chief Secretary. Where was the Chief Secretary? He (Mr. Moore) did not ask that the Bill should be postponed, but the Patronage Secretary could not, in the circumstances, complain if his friends and he did not carry out their part of the undertaking. The object of the Bill as he understood it—he would like to be corrected if he was wrong—was to deal with certain mineral rights in Ireland. He thought the House had a right to complain that the purpose of the Bill had not been stated by those who were responsible for it. It was rather unusual, and he might be reproached subsequently for it, that the people who were opposed to the Bill should be placed in the position of having to explain its terms. He dealt with the first part of the Bill first. Under the Act of 1903, in certain cases, minerals on an estate which was purchased, were vested in the Land Commission to be then disposed of as the Commission should direct. He thought it was understood that the direction should be contained in the Act, but owing to an oversight, or for some reason or other, the Act became law without containing a precise direction.
  454
  He might remind the House that the mineral rights of Ireland were a very valuable property, and they ought to watch very carefully how they were disposed of when legislation was required for the purpose. There was in Ireland a body which, of all bodies, would be most suited permanently to deal with this matter, a body which had done a great deal of valuable work. He referred to the Geological Survey. If the matter were English or Scottish nobody in that House would deny, looking at the question impartially, that the Geological Survey, with all the materials they had collected from time to time, with all the knowledge at their disposal, were the proper people to deal with the minerals which had been acquired by the State under the provisions of the Act, because it was not a mere matter of sale or barter, as the Bill itself proved. Under the Bill, prospecting and boring, and experimental assays of that sort, would be carried out throughout the country, and he thought it would have been ordinary common sense if the proposals of the Bill had been to put the prospecting and the working of these minerals, the ascertaining where they were, in what quantities they were, and how they could best be developed, in charge of the Geological Survey. He was aware the Geological Survey had lost its independent existence, that it was now merged in or rather under the control of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. He supposed that it would be out of order on the Second Reading of the Bill to move an Amendment transferring the obligation and responsibility for working these mineral rights to the Geological Survey, and he merely said that he regretted that the proper persons were not in the first place selected to carry out that work, which really ought to be done by the Geological Department under the control of the Department of Agriculture. The Bill proposed that Land Commission should carry out the work. That might suit the Government, very well, and it was perfectly true that by the operation of the Act of 1903 these mineral rights were vested in the Land Commission. But the Government had—he would not use the word concealed—had omitted to state in the explanatory Memorandum which was supposed

  455
  to make the Bill clear what the Land Commission apparently meant in that case. Under one of the sections of the Act of 1903, he thought it was the 23rd Section, the Land Commissioners were said to mean the Estates Commissioners. He thought that they had had plenty of evidence in that House during the present session, not only of the way they did it, but also of the very considerable amount of work the Estates Commissioners had had crowded on them. They had had evidence that the Estates Commissioners were hopelessly in arrear with their work, while the legislation of this session was destined to throw a very heavy additonal burden on their shoulders. He did not think it was at all desirable that the Estates Commissioners, if they were the people meant by the Land Commissioners—again he regretted the uncertainty they were in through not having had the benefit of an explanatory statement—should have this extra work thrown on them. If by the Land Commissioners the Estates Commissioners were meant, then he thought it was desirable that somebody more responsible should be vested with the responsibility of dealing with these important rights. He would like the Minister in charge of the Bill to state if he would consent to the judicial head of the Land Commission, Mr. Justice Wylie, a gentleman appointed by the present Government, and whom they all respected, to have all schemes submitted to him. Would the Government consent to allow all schemes dealing with minerals which the Land Commission might have to be brought before Mr. Justice Wylie? He did not think that that was an unreasonable proposition to make. It would certainly facilitate the passing of the Bill. He appealed to the Minister in charge of the Bill to state whether it was intended to vest these rights in the Estates Commissioners without any control. The Estates Commissioners were perfectly at liberty, under their own powers, to sit in their own office, no one being one whit the wiser, and to do just what they thought fit. He did not think such a course would give general satisfaction. They wanted some guarantee that the head of the Commision should be a party to the schemes. It was the head of the Land Commission in whom the mineral
  456
  rights were vested, and to whom, in name if not in deed, that Bill proposed to transfer the duties. He would have preferred not to have spoken at that stage, for he had hoped to hear what the Government's views were in regard to the Bill, and how far they were prepared to meet reasonable objections. They knew there were reasonable objections, otherwise they would not have promised an opportunity for discussing the Bill. He had only spoken at that stage so that they might hear the proposals of the Government. There was a second part of the Bill which related to a matter dealing with charges on holdings created by will or codicil. It provided that the period within which registration of these charges would be valid would be within six months of the grant of probate of the will or letters of administration. That was not unreasonable, but it was a matter on which, he thought, they ought to have some explanation and some statement as to the reasons which had led the Government to alter the existing law. He was not saying that the Government were not perfectly right, but they should have some explanation of it When they had had that explanation they would be in a position to understand how far the second part of the Bill required discussion on their part. The explanation in the memorandum was nothing more than a sort of dedication, and it did not explain why these things were necessary or how the existing law failed to satisfy requirements. He hoped that before the debate really began they would have an authoritative statement from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill as to what its scope and intention really were. It was impossible that the Bill should be passed without any explanation.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he would be very sorry indeed if the House should think there had been any breach of arrangement or understanding with regard to bringing on that Bill at that hour of the night, or that he had been guilty of any discourtesy in not making an explanatory statement. He was not aware that any arrangement had been made. The only conversation he had had with any hon. Member was with the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, who, he thought

  457
  would have no objection to his stating what transpired. The hon. Member told him he had no objection to the Bill, but wished that some little time should be given to discuss it, saying that they would not require more than an hour. He toll the hon. Member that though is was early in the session it was difficult to get even an hour then, but, if he would wait till later in the session they might get an hour for the discussion of the Bill. Exactly what he undertook should be done had been done. They had got a little time, at the end of a long day it was true.
  MR. LONSDALEsaid no suggestion that the Bill would be taken at that late hour was made in their conversation.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he had promised that an hour should be given. As regarded the other matter they had had a memorandum circulated with the Bill explaining its object, and he had not thought it necessary to trouble the House at that late hour of the night with any further explanation. As the hon. Member had asked for it, however, he was bound to give it. The Bill, as hon. Members would see by referring to the memorandum, was absolutely necessary to carry out the Act of 1903 passed by the late Government. Clause 13 of the Act of 1903 provided that—
  "On the sale under the Land Purchase Acts of any land by that Commission or of any land comprised in an estate by the owner of the estate, there shall be reserved in the prescribed manner to the Commission the exclusive right of mining and taking minerals and digging and searching for minerals on or under that land and the said right shall be disposed of by the Commission in manner hereafter to be provided by Parliament."
  It was absolutely necessary now that an Act of Parliament should be passed with that object, and that Bill had been brought in to carry out the necessary directions of the Act of 1903. The hon. Member had referred to the Estates Commissioners as being persons who ware to carry out that work, and he thought the hon. Member raised some objection to their doing it.
  MR. MOOREsaid he would like the Attorney-General to tell them what
  458
  minerals the Estates Commissioners had to deal with now, and whether there was any necessity for immediate legislation which rendered the passing of that Bill necessary?
  MR. CHERRYsaid there was immediate necessity. The Bill was introduced last session but had to be dropped and a great deal of inconvenience had been the result. In the county of Kerry a large amount of minerals was vested in the Estates Commissioners, and there were now prospectors on the spot for the purpose of establishing copper mines. That could not be done without a Bill because without the powers the Bill conferred on them the Estates Commissioners were powerless to do anything. The Act of Parliament passed in 1903 provided that the rights to be vested in the Land Commissioners were to be defined hereafter by Act of Parliament. It was believed that in the county Kerry copper mines could be carried on at great profit, and, as he had said, there were prospectors on the spot ready to proceed if they found that the result of their inquiries was satisfactory. He hoped that as a result of the passing of that Bill they would have a very important-mineral industry established there. In the county of Antrim, with which the hon. Member was probably better acquainted, there was every possibility of iron mines being developed. It was for that reason that the Government were anxious that Bill should be passed at the earliest possible date. They felt that the exact wording of the Act of 1903 left them no alternative than that the rights should be vested in the Estates Commissioners. The Act provided that the exclusive right of mining and taking minerals, and digging and searching for minerals, should be vested in the Land Commission and should be disposed of by the Commission in manner hereafter to be provided by Parliament. The body which was to have control must under the Act of 1903 be the Land Commission. He rather gathered that the Land Commission would lease the mineral rights in that Bill under their seal, and if the seal of the Land Commission was fixed the head of the Land Commission would, as the hon. Member desired, have a voice in the arrangements.

  459
  It was a duty of the Estates Commissioners, which they could riot get rid of to dispose of those rights, and therefore it was necessary that they should allow them to make the leases. The hon. Member had said that the Estates Commissioners had already got a great amount of work which they could not discharge. That Bill would relieve them for it would enable them to get rid of the mineral rights. That they would proceed to do, and the development of the country would be carried out and the object aimed at by the Act of 1903 would be achieved. The Act of 1903 was a deliberate Act of Parliament directing that the mineral rights should be reserved till Parliament hereafter arranged for their disposal. The other clause of the Bill was very simple, and he thought that he need not enter on any very lengthy explanation of it. It was a purely legal clause and a rather technical one, and for that reason it was not necessary that the memorandum should make any reference to it. The Act of 1903 required that charges should be registered within a certain time. A charge created by deed must be registered within six months of the making of the deed, and a charge created by will must be registered within six months of the death of the testator. There was a grave possibility that serious injustices might be perpetrated under this provision. Supposing, for instance, a man died and by will left his farm to his son. He charged, say, in favour of a daughter who was away a sum of £100 or £200 on the farm. Assuming that the son was anxious to cheat his sister of her right all he had to do was to hold the will for six months without proving it. At the end of that time the charge would be void because it had not been registered. All that the Government sought to do in the Bill was to throw the onus of registering the charge on the person who occupied the land. That was a perfectly fair arrangement, and would be a safeguard against possible unfairness or injustice. He hoped therefore that the House would allow the Government to secure the Second Reading of the Bill and to pass it into law as soon as possible.
  MR. GORDONsaid that he did not want to oppose the
  460
  Second Reading of the Bill, and he thought that the matter just referred to by the learned Attorney-General was a proper one to be dealt with. He wished, however, to call the learned Gentleman's attention to two or three matters connected with the Bill. He knew there were provisions in the Land Act of 1903 which instead of allowing the Land Commission to be the actual body to deal with this matter would put it in the hands of the Estates Commissioners. Perhaps he was wrong, but for his own part he would prefer that an important matter like this, connected with the granting of leases, the profits arising from which would be of advantage to the working of the Land Act of 1903, should be under the control of the head of the Land Commission, who was a Judge of the High Court. He did not think that it would weaken at all the effect of this Bill if the Government did that. He therefore asked the learned Attorney-General to take into his active consideration the question of whether it would not be better, apart from any arrangement under the Act of 1903, that Parliament should provide that this matter of the leasing and sale of mineral rights should be under the direction of the Land Commission itself. There was another matter to which he wished to call attention. The Bill, he thought, would unnecessarily hamper the making of these leases. If hon. Members looked at the first clause they would find that the Irish Land Commissioners—
  "May let, lease, sell, or demise to any person for his own benefit, in such terms and subject to such conditions as they may think proper, any exclusive right of mining or taking minerals, or digging, or searching for minerals, reserved to them under Section thirteen of the Irish Land Act, 1903."
  There might be a good reason for inserting the words 'for his own benefit," but he could not at that moment determine what the reason was, and it was a point on which he should like an explanation. The House would be aware that mines and minerals were generally developed by companies which were formed for the purpose. Leases were very frequently made to persons who were trustees for these companies, and he could not see why the power should be restricted to merely granting leases or selling to persons

  461
  who were going to work for their own immediate benefit. The learned Attorney-General should carefully consider this matter and remove these words, which were an unnecessary bar in the way of the development of property. He thought it would be better on all grounds for the Land Commission to have the power to grant leases to persons who might be trustees for a corporation or a private company which desired to work the minerals provided they were satisfied with its stability. As regarded the second clause of the Bill, dealing with the registraton of charges created by will, he thought that the provisions there laid down might lead to inconvenience and might prove in some way inadequate to carry out what the learned Attorney-General had stated to be his intention in framing the clause. The second subsection provided that—
  "Such registration shall, within the time limited by this section, be effected, for the benefit of the owner of the charge, by the person becoming beneficially entitled to the holding on the death of the testator."
  That meant, he supposed, that a charge created in favour of somebody who was not beneficially or who was not to become beneficially entitled to the holding under the will of the testator was to be registered by the person becoming beneficially entitled to the holding. He was afraid that the very difficulty which the learned Attorney-General had referred to when he spoke of the man who was to become entitled to the holding keeping the will in his pocket might arise under this clause, and that the object of the testator in giving a charge on the holding which was left to him would be defeated. Even assuming that the man to whom the holding was demised actually proved the will, it might happen that the person entitled to a charge on the holding was in Australia, or was a minor, or was unable to deal with the matter himself. Why should it be that the charge was to be registered by the person becoming beneficially entitled to the holding? He would suggest to the learned Attorney-General that he should go a little farther and make such provision in the Bill that the person who was really entitled to the charge should have the
  462
  right to register. It would, he thought, be easy to supply a form of words which would provide that the charge should be registered by that person within six months of the time when he became cognisant of the fact that he was entitled to the charge. The person for whose benefit the charge was made might not hear of it at all until after six months had elapsed from the date of the death of the testator, and he desired that a case like that should be covered by the provisions of the Bill. The point he had raised might not be an objection to the Bill in itself, but it was an important matter which ought to be considered, and the Bill might easily be so amended as to deal with it. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would take such steps as would ensure that the person who was entitled to the charge should have a reasonable time in which to register it and make it valid under the Act. He did not think there was any desire on the part of his hon. friends on that side of the House to offer opposition of a strong character to the Second Reading of the Bill, but it was their desire that the proposed legislation should proceed on the best possible lines in order to carry out the intentions of the Government in a satisfactory way. They further wished that proper time should be afforded for a short but reasonable discussion of the Bill.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGHagreed with his hon. Friend that it was most desirable that the Land Commission should be empowered to deal with these rights, and he regretted that the Estates Commissioners, whose hands were already quite full of work, should be cumbered with any subterranean duties. They also thought that without taking this matter out of the hands of the Estates Commissioners the learned Attorney-General might very well have inserted an Amendment making any leases or ales that might be effected by the Estates Commissioners subject to the approval of a Judicial Commissioner or of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, because the objection suggested by the hon. Member for North Armagh to the way in which the Estates Commissioners dealt with many of their

  463
  important duties was not a mere formal one. He would point out also that there were other people interested in the question. The Estates Commissioners were trustees as to one-fourth of the profits derived from the working of the minerals, or as to their sale, for the owner. The matter therefore was very important and it should be under the control or supervision of a trained lawyer—either the Judicial Commissioner or Mr. Justice Fitzgerald. As regarded the second part of the Bill he recognised the good intentions of the Attorney-General, and he believed he was to some extent responsible for it by calling attention to the extraordinary result that would arise in many cases under subsection 4 of Section 54 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. He told the Attorney-General that the section could not have been intended for white men. It had, he thought, an Oriental origin, and was drawn up in an absolute disregard of the laws of Ireland. It prevented people who were supposed to be free men from dealing with their land by way of charge or mortgage. It prevented any man from borrowing money on the security of his holding. He supposed it was intended to protect the improvident and thriftless proprietor of land, but it was framed without any knowledge of the law of Ireland, because it did not prevent a judgment mortgage. It was now proposed that a charge upon land should be registered within six months of the death of the testator. The Attorney-General had pointed out one way in which this particular provision of the Land Act might operate most dishonestly, but there were dozens of other ways. The will might be made abroad, or it might result in a lawsuit, or a hundred other things might happen. The subsection of the Act in question was perfectly absurd, and he was glad that the Attorney-General was attempting to amend it, but he would have been much better pleased if the object of his Bill had been totally to repeal the subsection. No matter how Parliament amended it, he believed they would find that it would still be unworkable and lead to the same results as those described in previous speeches. Subsection 2 of the second clause of this Bill would, however, prove absolutely unworkable. It was worse, he thought,
  464
  than the old subsection. The proposal was that such registration should within the time limited by the section be effected for the benefit of the owner of the charge by the person beneficially entitled on the death of the testator. He could conceive various instances in which it would be impossible to carry out such a proposal. The person beneficially entitled might die within six months, might be an infant, might be a lunatic, might, when he succeeded, be in some remote part of the earth and be quite unaware of what had happened. In that case he could not possibly register within six months. The Attorney-General's Amendment would only make confusion worse confounded. They were only two possible ways of making his Amendment effective. They were both undesirable. One was to throw the duty upon the officer of the Probate Court, who should transmit a copy of the will containing the charge to the proper officer, or to throw the duty upon the personal representative of the de eased. To adopt either procedure was open to grave objection.
  MR. CHERRY MR. CHERRY said he did not seek to provide that the charge could only be registered by the person beneficially entitled. What he sought to do was to cast the duty upon the person who became beneficially entitled to the land to carry out registration.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH*MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH said the section was absolutely unworkable as it stood, and could only be made workable by the means he suggested. The best Amendment would be repeal of the section. It was impossible, satisfactorily, to arrange this registration of a charge created by will. The section threw no effective duty on anyone and gave no remedy for breach of the duty. He most earnestly pressed on the Attorney-General whether the whole section could not be, with advantage to everybody in Ireland, repealed. He had never in a tolerably extensive legal experience met anybody who asked for the section, and he had heard complaints from every corner of Ireland, among all classes of people, about it. It was an absolutely silly section. It did not protect the thriftless man and it imposed a burden on the thrifty. It was not a

  465
  proposal to be applied to white men. It was unsuitable to a civilised country, and the very impossibility of making any satisfactory Amendment showed that the best thing would be to get rid of it. If they could not have that, he would urge the consideration whether the duty should not be thrown upon the probate officer. The section had worked most horrible iniquity up to the present. In several instances known to himself, people had been deprived of their charges, in some oases through mere ignorance. People did not rush off immediately to prove a will after a man's death, and did not know it was to be registered within six months. In a large number of cases, registration did not take place through inadvertence. He pressed for the repeal of the section.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTrose to appeal to his hon. friends not further to oppose a Bill on which both sides of the House were largely agreed. The points which had been raised appeared to him, and he thought would appear to the House, as points which were far more suited for Committee than for a Second Reading debate. He hoped his hon. friends would not proceed in their opposition.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow (Friday).

  COMPANIES BILL [LORDS.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)in moving the Second Reading said the Bill was one which had come down from the other House. It was based on the recommendation of a Committee appointed by Mr. Gerald Balfour when President of the Board of Trade, and it embodied practically all the recommendations made by that Committee. The principles underlying the Bill were very fully explained in the Memorandum attached to it, and therefore he did not propose to go through the various propositions. The Bill had been thoroughly canvassed and discussed in financial circles
  466
  during the last few weeks and months, and it was quite unnecessary to enter into explanations of the various clauses. He thought he had better say at the very outset in reference to one or two provisions in regard to which there had been some controversy that it was not-proposed to proceed with those. Ore was the provision with regard to the filing of private companies. Considerable objection had been taken to that, and the Government did not propose to proceed with it. Some criticism had been offered with reference to the provision dealing with those who now audited accounts of companies who were not accountants, but were appointed rather as experts is such matters. In the circumstances the Government were prepared to drop that provision. These were the only two provisions to which he had heard any objection taken, and as the Government proposed to drop them, he assumed that the Bill was now in the nature of an unopposed measure. It had been fully discussed in the other House, and he asked that House now to give it a Second Reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. FELLsaid the importance of the Bill would be denied by no one. It affected the property of tens of thousands of people in this country and it affected the investments which tens of thousands of other people in the future would make. He believed the amount now invested in joint stock companies exceeded that of all other investments in the country, and it was increasing far faster than any other form of investment. The object of the Bill was to remedy certain difficulties which had been found under the Bill of 1900 and to improve on that Bill. That Bill was intended to protect the investors. In some ways it had prejudiced their interests. Provisions were embodied that prospectuses of companies should give fuller information than they did up to that time, that more material points should be disclosed. The result of making that so stringent was that instead of the partial protection which even these prospectuses gave, they were

  467
  left in many cases without any prospectuses or facts at all. Since the Act of 1900 was understood it had become a very common practice to issue no prospectuses and not to advertise the companies at all. Whatever protection had existed before was consequently lost by the attempt of the Act of 1900 to give greater protection. That showed how extremely necessary it was to discuss the matter thoroughly from the very bottom. They must take care that in the attempt to give too great safety they did not give any protection at all. He would point out one piece of evidence which was pretty conclusive as to that. There had always been a difficulty, that intermediate contracts were not disclosed and that contracts did not go back far enough to show the large profits that were being made by some person who did not appear in the prospectus at all. The attempt to have such contracts inserted so that people applying for shares might know exactly where the money went, had simply resulted in lawyers advising that every contract should henceforth be put into the prospectus. The consequence was that there was such a multitudinous lot of agreements in small print inserted that they might just as well not be there at all. It was perfectly possible for the ordinary investor to go through those contracts and inspect them and to come away no wiser. He was confident that the great thing in regard to a prospectus was, not that it should get everything into it, but that it should be correct and should as shortly as possible express truly the state of the business. If they tried to cover such an extraordinary amount of ground as was done by the Act of 1900 they rendered the whole thing nugatory. The object of the new Bill was to force the prospectus to be correct or if no prospectus was issued the company would have to register a statement of its affairs. The statement of the company must consist of the precise points of interest which were required to be set out in a prospectus. In the schedule a draft statement of what was expected was set out, and he believed that in that statement they were asking a great deal too much, and the result would be that they would get nothing at all, or that they would get such an amount of information that they would
  468
  be confused by it, and it would be practically of no value. He quite agreed that a great deal of the schedule was good, and might be of great advantage, but they were trying to get too much into it, just as they tried to get too much into a prospectus and consequently spoilt it. If they read a prospectus now they found it perfectly impossible to find out what the business was because the ordinary lay mind could make very little out of it. They could not use their intelligence at all. That was the first point that would want careful consideration and possibly some amendment. The next point was with regard to the issue of shares at a discount. The importance of that could not be overrated. He believed it was legal in all other countries to issue shares at a discount. In the colonies they did so, and in America it was a common practice. In America they sold dollar shares, at ten cents., and as a company got on they sold them perhaps at twenty-five cents. It was frequently quoted that companies were selling their dollar shares at twenty-five cents. In England that was impossible. He did not know whether there was any Act of Parliament prohibiting it but the decision of the Courts had been to the effect that shares must not be issued at a discount, and many companies had suffered grievously in consequence of that obligation. The ingenuity of the legal mind had been sufficient to get over the difficulty, and it had been got over. It had not been possible without a little help from the authorities, who received very large sums on the registration of those companies which were reconstructed. He was quite sure, how ever, that the Government and officials would not really desire a cumbrous method, such as reconstruction of companies in the present way, to be adopted, but would much rather that everything was done honestly. Pound shares in the old company were at present exchanged for £1 shares in a new company with 15s. or whatever the amount might be paid up, leaving 5s. or whatever the amount might be, to be assessed on the new shares. Under the new Act it would be possible to issue further shares at 5s. While on that point he desired to point out that

  469
  it was perfectly clear that shares would be issued at a very great discount. Companies whose shares had fallen heavily would resort to that method, and they would have companies which had perfectly good businesses, which required further capital to pull them round, and ensure a very successful future, availing themselves of it, and issuing their shares at a small price. It would require 3 great deal of care in carrying out. There was a stipulation that it was to be done when a company had continuously carried on a business for more than two years. He thought some alteration might be necessary there. Clause 8 could hardly stand, for it provided for the repayment out of profits of the whole of the money which had been lost by companies in issuing shares at a discount. He did not think that, however prosperous a company might be, it could reasonably be expected out of its profits to make up the 15s. which had been lost, and to bring those shares up to par. He thought some change would be necessary there. Another important point was the payment of interest out of capital. They had of course become accustomed to that in railway companies, etc., but in the case of ordinary companies, such as gold mines, or industrial companies, but more particularly gold mines and exploring companies, it would be very difficult to draw the line. Those companies were to pay interest out of capital during construction, but a successful gold mine was always under construction, and it was impossible to say when it had finished its work. All progressive companies were the same. A great company like Rio Tinto could never say it had closed its capital account. It might be possible to introduce some words to make that provision with regard to payment of interest out of capital feasible. It was certainly a point they must consider. There was a safeguard in the fact that the Board of Trade had to give their previous sanction. He thought there was a doubt whether they would give it in the case of gold mines. The clause applied rather to a constructive work like a railway or a canal than to a gold mine. It was provided that if those shares were to be issued and to have the benefit of 4 per cent. interest during construction that
  470
  that fact must be set out in the prospectus, otherwise the company would not get the benefit of placing its capital in that way. As they had in addition to get the previous sanction of the Board of Trade many companies could not make use of the clause. The most successful companies were frequently those whose shares were the most rapidly issued. When the time was ripe, and the market in a proper condition, there must be no delay whatever if the work was to be successfully done. That being so it would be difficult to get the Board of Trade sanction. The registration of foreign companies over here was provided for in the Bill. It had always been a matter of surprise to him that we had never previously insisted on their registration. The very first thing we had to do if we wanted to do business abroad was to get the sanction of the country with which we wanted to do business, but we had let companies from abroad open their offices here without paying fees or duties of any kind, and without any provision of any kind for control over them. He thought from the wording of the clause that it really pointed to companies in our own Colonies, such as companies in South Africa. He did not think it was meant to apply to small French or German companies which had agencies or branches in this country. There might be a difficulty in regard to that class. The large companies, however which really did business in this country ought to be registered, ought to have an authorised agent who could be sued, and ought to put on their note paper that they were registered in Paris or elsewhere. That was all he would trouble the House with at that late hour of the night. While entirely agreeing that the Act of 1900 did require amendment, and very considerable amendment, he thought it was also clear that they would have to go very warily and take the greatest care over the two or three points which he had brought before the House. He had very little doubt that if they did take care they might make an Act which in the future would be of very great benefit to investors. But when all was done for them the investors must rely on themselves.
  MR. BEALEsaid he only rose to speak on the Second Reading of this measure because he thought it was necessary after the observation of the President of the Board of Trade, to the effect that it was practically an unopposed Bill, to say that, while he fervently hoped it might prove so, it was within his knowledge that a body of lawyers of considerable eminence in this country had very serious points to raise which they wished to be considered. He did not think it was for a moment an unopposed Bill in the sense that it could be disposed of in a very short time merely by way of alteration. In the first place—and this was really a Second Beading principle—the first clause of the Bill went on lines which, he was sorry to say, he had regretted for a great number of years, and which were initiated by the Act of 1867. It tried to prescribe what people were to say in a prospectus in order to be honest. They were to give the dates of and parties to every material contract, but as long as these were in the prospectus they might make it as obscure as they liked. They might, in fact, bury practically all the principal points which they ought to have revealed. The Bill was undoubtedly needed to supplement the shortcomings and correct the blunders of previous legislation, but it was to be regretted that such legislation was ever initiated in the way it was. There was another point as to the issue of shares at a discount, regarding which he would like I to say a few words, and which required a good deal more attention than the last speaker gave to it. He defied anyone on reading the clause to say what would be the effect if the provision contained in it was not fulfilled. Supposing the provision was not complied with, who could say from the clause whether the issue was void or not, whether the share was allotted at all, or whether the man held a share but, had not got the benefit of the discount? Another point, and a more serious one, was that under Clause 11 it was provided that all mortgages and charges should be void unless within twenty-one days certain particulars were furnished. People who had subscribed their money would not, however, know
  472
  whether this had been done or not. It appeared very strange that such a clause should ever have passed the other House, and in any event it certainly should not pass in the House of Commons. There were other things in the Bill which raised questions of unnecessary interference with the ordinary course of business, all of which, he thought, might be properly dealt with by way of Amendment in Committee. He hoped with the good will of the Board of Trade and by confining themselves to what was really essential there might be no difficulty in carrying out the wishes of a large body of people in this matter.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the interest in joint stock companies was enormous, no less than £2,000,000,000 being invested in them. Legislation which affected them was, therefore, of very great importance. He was very much surprised at what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down and who looked with very great sympathy on the imposition of restrictions upon the promotion and management of joint stock companies. Personally, he did not believe that by these precautions they ever did what they desired, for by them they merely hit the honest fool, whilst they missed the clever rogue. The mesh of their net had to be so wide in order to catch the clever rogue, that they would really destroy enterprise altogether. He, therefore, looked with suspicion upon any of these precautions, and he thought they would do better if they left the companies alone altogether and allowed the investors to look after themselves. If they suffered, it would be their own fault. The moment they legislated by imposing restrictions, the foolish investor, in whose interest the precautions were taken, imagined that the legislation had protected him. As a matter of fact, it did not. Some ingenious swindler would find his way round the law, and the last state of the investor would be worse than the first. It was not only that, but there was very little doubt that some of the precautions produced a very serious effect indeed upon company enterprise in the country. The Committee to which the President of the Board of Trade had referred were very

  473
  much struck by the decrease in joint stock company business in the country. They pointed out that since 1896 it had fallen off very considerably. After the passing of the Act of 1900 the decrease was exceedingly rapid and severe. The number of companies went down from 4,500 to 3,900, and the amount of money subscribed fell from £206,000,000 to £137,000,000. The nominal amount of capital of each company had also gone steadily down since 1896, and it was now very much less than half what it was in that year. He saw that among the causes assigned by the Committee for this was the following: They said that the diminution had been caused in part by the Companies Act of 1900, which introduced very stringent precautions and made the issue of prospectuses more difficult, and brought in new and heavy liabilities upon promoters and directors. He called attention to this fact, and the materiality of it in relation to this Bill was that they called especial attention to the fact that a large number and an increasing number of companies issued no prospectuses at all. The majority were of opinion that such a statement should be made, but they were not very sanguine about it. That was only the extent to which they recommended it, and he confessed that the reasons they gave did not appear to him to be very satisfactory. After all, if a company came before the country without a prospectus it made no statement which could deceive the public. It was for the public then to inquire into the prospects of the company, and he, personally, did not see what harm would be done. It would be for the public to make what inquiries they pleased. The moment they required a statement to be issued, he agreed that it must not only be true in the sense of not stating anything which was false, but it must be complete. The Government proposed by the Bill to require a statement which he agreed would give some information, but it evidently would not give that full information which might be desirable, and without which the statement in the hands of an ingenious person would probably be made to give very little information at all of any value to the investor. It appeared to him that such a statement would be a trap to the investor.
  474
  He did not see why the Government had inserted the first three clauses in the Bill, and he trusted that when they got into Committee the Government would drop them. He very earnestly pressed upon the Government's attention the consideration whether it was really in the interests of the public—taking the public in its widest sense, not only the investors but all the people in the country who depended upon the prosperity of this great branch of enterprise in the country—and whether it was desirable to impose these restrictions on the formation of companies. Would it not be better to leave the thing alone and allow the public to find out themselves what was really the law and to take their own precautions accordingly?
  MR. CAVEprotested against the Government bringing on at that late period of the session a Bill of such very great importance to the commercial community. It was not, as had been suggested, an entirely uncontroversial Bill, but there were points in it—matters which must be discussed and debated—which would meet with considerable opposition from more quarters than one. He did not think it was quite fair to the business community that matters of this importance should be brought on at a time when discussion could not be really adequate for the purpose. There was one other matter to which he wished to refer. He wanted to know exactly where the House was with regard to certain clauses of the Bill. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that two of the clauses at least would be abandoned. He supposed that one was Clause 21.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The latter part of Sub-section (1.)
  MR. CAVE: Am I to understand that apart only of Subsection (1) of Clause 21 is to be abandoned? I think that Subsection (4) of that clause ought also to be left out. I understand that Clause 23 will be dropped.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In so far as it refers to private companies.
  MR. CAVEthought that objection would be taken to the whole of the clause when the proper time came. He did not think that, even in the case of public companies, it should be the duty of a company to file a statement of all its accounts, and give the public access to them. Whether in the case of public companies or of private companies, those accounts ought to be confined to the shareholders and not thrown open to the gaze of everybody. Apart from these matters he also took strong objection to other clauses. There was for instance Clause 11, which required the registration of mortgages. He thought that clause objectionable so far as it applied to mortgages of land and possibly to mortgages of book debts. If the mortgage was not registered within a certain time, it was, according to the Bill, to become void. There ought to be introduced into the clause a provision whereby, if through inadvertence registration did not take place, the time might be extended. That had been found a useful provision in the Acts requiring registration of debentures, in connection with which it had been often employed, and it ought to be inserted in Clause 11. He was taking the matter very shortly because they were only on the Second Reading. Clause 19, which gave not only to creditors but to the public the right to inspect registered mortgages, he thought required consideration. Again in regard to Clause 26, which said that fourteen days notice must be given of all meetings, he thought that was wholly unworkable. In the case of many companies it was necessary that a meeting should be called for business purposes at very much less notice than fourteen days. That was another clause that required consideration. He was not going into other details that night, but he wanted to look at the matter from a business point of view, and from that point of view the Bill required a great deal of consideration. He hoped that both in Committee and on Report they would have a full opportunity of expressing their views.
  MR. HILLSsaid he rose for the purpose of dealing with one or two points only. He associated himself entirely with the view that everything for
  476
  the protection of shareholders ought to be carefully scrutinised. All this vast machinery of registration and prospectuses and the inclusion of certain things in prospectuses was largely a snare. He-would only say a few words about the protection of creditors. He thought the Bill went too far in the direction of protecting creditors ft the expense of shareholders. The clause regarding mortgages, which had just been referred to, was for the protection of creditors. As to that, he did not quite see that a creditor ought to have any more rights against a company than he had against an individual, and an individual was not required to disclose his mortgages. He did not see any reason for the provision. Then there was the question of the balance sheet. It certainly seemed rather hard if all the people who cared to pay 1s. could come and see the balance sheet. It was rather hard on the company, for a balance sheet disclosed facts to rival traders that ought not to be known. It would have this dangerous effect, that it would induce a company to keep as much out of the balance sheet as it possibly could. Surely the shareholder was the only person who was really entitled to see the balance sheet. It was not a matter which the creditor had a right to see. There were certain clauses that increased the flexibility of a company, and these he supported most heartily. The provision enabling a company to issue shares at a discount was in accordance with present conditions and ought to be accepted. Shares were as a matter of fact issued at present at a discount, and it was far bolder and wiser to recognise that and to allow the company to issue shares in that way. The same thing applied to payment of interest out of capital. That was allowed in the case of statutory undertakings, and on the whole he thought it was a fair arrangement. Under the safeguarding in the Bill, the sanction of the Board of Trade and so on, he did not think it would work any harm. It also increased the flexibility of companies and cut away some of the stiffness and rigidity which certainly now increased expense and decreased efficiency. Now he came to the main point. The true ground of company reform seemed to him the increasing of the responsibility of

  477
  directors. The only real safeguard was efficient and honest men to manage the company. At present the Courts had taken a very narrow view of the responsibilities of directors. In fact, if a director attended meetings and drew his salary, he had fulfilled his whole duty to the company. It ought to be made a much more responsible thing for a man to undertake a directorship. At present it was regarded lightly. He thought it was too badly paid as a rule, and men engaged in far too many undertakings. A certain decision of the Court in his judgment had had a most deleterious effect in this respect. The impression had been given that the real people who ran the company were not the directors, but the business managers. He was putting the matter shortly. The Bill was one in which he was deeply interested, and he hoped in Committee there would be ample time for discussing it.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he would not discuss the details as he should wish, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman must see himself by now, that in dealing with such a Bill involving important legal and business questions, it was somewhat and that they should have to discuss it at that time of night, and that it should go to Committee at a time when the House was sitting late every night, as it did during August. Moreover, it was useless to think that the Committee could get from business or legal people in the month of August that information which was essential to a proper understanding of the details of the Bill. Having said that, he did not propose to detain the House, but he merely asked whether it was fair in the best interests of the Bill that it should be pressed through Committee and Report in the month of August.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

  JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MOOREasked if he would be in order in moving the adjournment of the
  478
  debate. They had been there since a quarter to three and he had been serving on a Committee which met at eleven o'clock. It was really hardly fair that they should have contentious matter brought forward at such an hour. His friends and he would discuss it fairly if the Patronage Secretary would give them time to do it on a proper occasion. He put it to him that they had not been unreasonable about it, and that the House should not at two o'clock in the morning begin to debate the matter.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: It was agreed that we should get this Bill.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This discussion is not in order. There is no Question before the House.
  MR. BIRRELL MR. BIRRELL said that this was a Bill the second reading of which, he thought, there would be no difficulty in getting at any hour of the day or night. Its object was to abolish two Irish Judges and to reduce the salary of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland by £2,000 a year. Anyone who was at all interested in economies would feel it was an admirable measure, and he was sure that the fact that the hon. Gentleman opposite belonged to the same profession as himself, would not in any way interfere with the desire to carry out an undertaking which had been before Parliament for years. The Bill was no more than the re-introduction of a measure introduced by the late Conservative Government. The fact was that the House by its own Labourers Bill of last session bound itself to provide funds for that Bill. Those funds were to come from specified sources. Anybody who referred to the thirteenth section of that Act would see that the funds which were to provide that measure with the necessary money were those which would be liberated and set free by this Bill. It really was not open consequently to hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite to discuss the measure unless they were prepared to go back on the policy of their predecessors and also on the pledges practically given when the Labourers Act was passed. The measure was confined to that object. The first section provided that the two vacancies occurring

  479
  next after the 1st March, 1907, in the office of Judge of the King's Bench Division, other than Lord Chief Justice in Ireland, should not be filled, and the House would observe the date. He put in the date to tie his own hand. Gentlemen opposite were always accusing him of yielding to temptation. The long vacation was now upon them. Judges were scattered all over the land. Some were fishing, others would soon be shooting. They were exposing themselves to all kinds of dangers and perils. Heaven knew what would happen to him if any of them perished without that Bill. Pressure would be put on him to fill their places. He hoped by the date he would not be subjected to that pressure if any lamentable accident were to supervene. He was happy to say the Lord Chancellor had agreed to the reduction of his salary. The House should avail itself of the opportunity of an accommodating Lord Chancellor rather than delay the matter until a time when possibly the occupant of the Woolsack in Ireland might take another view of his public duty. Seriously he put it that the House was pledged, and he would be much surprised if any of the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite could in any way get out of the fact, that ever since 1885 measures had been introduced with that purpose in view, and as he said they had pledged themselves in regard to the Labourers Bill. It was introduced last session at the same time as the Labourers Bill, and really they would be neglecting their duty and not fulfilling their obligations towards the labourers whose cottages were being erected if they delayed one moment in supplying the necessary funds.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. MOORE MR. MOORE said he had listened with some interest to the customary jeers which any individual who happened to be a barrister received from hon. Gentlemen below the gangway if he ventured to speak on matters connected with legal preferment in Ireland. He had really thought, however, that the right hon. Gentleman, who was himself a member of the legal profession, would
  480
  have risen above such petty consideration.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he had said that he was sure the hon. Member had no such personal interest.
  MR. MOOREsaid he withdrew at once what he had said about the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped that in future there would be no occasion which would give rise to a similar misconception on his part. Personally, he had always opposed a reduction in the number of Judges in Ireland. He had been consistent throughout, and his opposition had been prompted by no personal interest, but by the fact that he was a member of the Bar who took a keen interest in the work of the Bar. The Bar with which he was associated, and with which the Attorney-General for Ireland was associated, took the stand that the reductions were unnecessary. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had referred to the fact that since 1885 Parliament had pledged itself to make reductions in the Irish judicature. But Parliament had carried out that pledge in 1887 when there was an amalgamation of the Judgeships in the High Court and several Judges were abolished. He thought he was right in saying that since; 1885 five Judgeships had been abolished. The more Judgeships that were abolished the more reason there was for the House to consider before abolishing any more. The last Judicature Act was passed in 1897 and since then there had been a continuous reduction in the number of Judgeships. If that were true it was not right for the right hon. Gentleman to base his present action on the fact that pledges were given in 1885, and to suggest that those pledges had not been kept till that Bill was brought in. The public was not in favour of the Bill. He would tell the House why. They had five circuits in Ireland and there had been no proposition to abolish the circuit system. They had two Judges to each circuit. The circuits were not for the convenience of the Judges but for the convenience of the public. The assize court was practically the only court for an Irish litigant to have his case tried in. The subject of county court litigation was not to be judged

  481
  by the British standard. The limit was £500, and the only chance the people of Ireland had to have their cases tried by a Judge was to appeal to the Assizes. The procedure then was that witnesses attended again and the whole case was reheard. While they had the circuit system consisting of five circuits in Ireland they must from some quarter or other have ten Judges in order that the poor man might have his poor man's court in his own county town. There was great doubt as to whether the reduction would alter the circuit system. The position now was that they required in the public interest that there should be ten Judges. There was a vacancy in the King's Bench division which was created early in 1903 by a King's Bench Judge volunteering to take the place of a Judge in the Chancery division. That place was not filled, and it became necessary to send members of the Court of Appeal through the country on circuit. While they were out on circuit there was the greatest difficulty in getting a Court of Appeal to sit, because of the absence of those particular Judges. In consequence the work of the Court of Appeal in Ireland was paralysed. That was not a satisfactory state of things. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of pledges given by successive Governments that when a vacancy occurred they would not fill it. Certainly the Minister in charge of the Bill of 1903 gave a pledge, and the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in that House gave a pledge, that one vacancy would not be filled. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor brought in a Bill last year which was dropped, but which provided that that Judgeship should not be filled up. But what did the right hon. Gentleman do? Within six weeks of taking office he at once proceeded to fill up the Judgeship which his own Party was pledged to abolish, and which the right hon. Gentleman's precedessor had declared to be extinct. The appointment of Mr. Justice Dodd was made at the end of February when the pledge had been in existence three years. Mr. Justice Dodd was appointed, and then the right hon. Gentleman brought in a Bill providing that no vacancy after 1st of March, should be filled. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity, but not on
  482
  his candour. Whether or not it might be argued on the part of the Government that it was unnecessary to fill up the vacancies, they could not say that in February last, when they appointed Mr. Justice Dodd, it was unnecessary to fill the vacancy. If it was unnecessary to fill the vacancies it must be because of something which had happened since Mr. Justice Dodd's apointment. They were told that Mr. Justice Dodd was appointed to dispose of the large accumulation of arrears of Land Commission appeals. Last year there were 11,000 appeals to be disposed of, and in the course of one year the 11,000 was reduced to 7,000. Then Mr. Justice Dodd was appointed. They were told in that House that day that Mr. Justice Dodd had disposed of 350 appeals, about a fortnight's, or at a generous estimate, three weeks work. Though the Government had filled up that judgeship in defiance of the pledges that had been given, the only reason for that appointment was said to be that all those appeals had to be dealt with, yet Mr. Justice Dodd had only done about three weeks' work. Mr. Justice Dodd had been employed in the King's Bench Division, it had been necessary that he should be, and he had done good work there. That was why Mr. Justice Dodd was appointed. In his opinion, Mr. Justice Dodd was appointed for the common law work which he had done ever since. The common law which he had done was ten times as large as the work he had done on the appeals to deal with which he was appointed. It had been necessary to apoint Mr. Justice Dodd, and the amount of work he had done was a thorough justification of the action of the Government in filling up the vacancy. What he complained of was that Mr. Justice Dodd was appointed in breach of a particular pledge which had been given. He had been told it was necessary to break that pledge in order to get rid of Land Commission appeals, but they now found that Mr. Justice Dodd had not been getting rid of Land Commission appeals, but had been doing common law work. That showed that there was every justification for appointing Mr. Justice Dodd to the King's Bench Division. It showed that the work was there and people knew that the work was there. When the Bar

  483
  Council passed a Resolution on the subject he thought it ought to be considered. He thought, however, that it was no use complaining at that late hour. He did not know whether the Bill would be considered in a Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. BIRRELL MR. BIRRELL said they kept everything in that House.
  MR. MOOREthought it was really not so jocular a matter as the Chief Secretary thought when he moved his Motion. He wanted to allude to one more point. It was perfectly true that the generosity of the Government towards the labourers of Ireland, and the generous financial provision made for them under the Act, which they took so much credit for last year, was the reason for the abolition of the two Irish judgeships. The Irish Judges were to be abolished to provide funds for the carrying out of the Irish Labourers Act. As a matter of fact the working of the provisions of the Irish Labourers Act had created a great deal of soreness, and in spite of what

  AYES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ferens, T. R.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Radford, G. H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Grant, Corrie

  Robinson, S.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Russell, T. W.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Branch, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Waring, Walter

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Clough, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Cory, Clifford John

  Maddison, Frederick

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

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

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Elibank, Master of

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Paulton, James Mellor

  NOES.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hills, J. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Cave, George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Moore and Mr. Fetherston- haugh.

  Gordon, J.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Bill read a second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow (Friday).
  they were told as to its being a legal distribution of money he had no hesitation in affirming that the method pursued had in a large measure deprived the counties in the North of Ireland of the Exchequer grant which they were getting under the previous Labourers Act. It was the labourers who suffered by this because the rural councils would not build cottages when the whole feeling of the ratepayers was against it. He wished to ask the Attorney-General would he consider, if this Bill became law, some method of re-alloting the moneys which would be saved by the Act with a view to removing the injustice which under last year's Bill had been caused to the local authorities in the North of Ireland in their efforts to build labourers cottages. He did not think that was unreasonable, and if his request could be granted it would alter to a great extent in one aspect his opposition to the Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes, 11. (Division List No. 396.)
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th day of July last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
North Staffordshire Railway Bill.—The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Paisley Corporation Order Confirmation Bill.—Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PETITIONS.
  BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
  Petitions to be heard by Counsel for amendment of; of the Exeter Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; The Grocers' Association of Mullingar, Ireland; The Caerphilly and District Grocers' Association, comprising 50 members of the Trade; The Llandudno and District Grocers' Association; The Tynemouth and District Grocers' Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTION FOR PROPELLING POWER) BILL.
  Petitions to be heard by Counsel against; of Newport Harbour Commissioners; and Port Talbot Railway and Docks Company; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 534. Gold Coast (Report for 1906).
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Annual Report of proceedings under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, &c., &c., for the year 1906.
  POST OFFICE (PERU).
  Agreement between the Post Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of Peru, dated 22nd February, 1907, 3rd May, 1907.
  ALIENS ACT, 1905.
  Returns of alien passengers brought to the United Kingdom from ports in Europe or within the Mediterranean Sea during the three months ended 30th June, 1907; together with the number of expulsion orders made during that period requiring aliens to leave the United Kingdom.
  METEOROLOGY.
  Second Annual Report of the Meteorological Committee to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, for the year ended 31st March, 1907.
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3888. Mexico. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS.
  County Court Rules, 1907.
  PHARMACY (IRELAND) ACTS, 1875 AND 1890.
  Order in Council, dated 6th August, 1907, approving of a regulation made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  DIVORCE BILLS.
  Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of 16th July last), and to be printed. (No. 163.)
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-mormow.

EVIDENCE (COLONIAL STATUTES) BILL.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, I need only say a very few sentences in explanation of this Bill. It is brought in in order to remove a grievance which exists in the Colonies from the fact that at present Colonial laws are regarded in English Courts as foreign

223
laws for purposes of proof, and have to be proved by the oral evidence of an expert. This inconvenience was mentioned by the Governor-General of the Commonwealth in 1905 to the late Government, in a case in which a man had been acquitted in England of embezzling his wife's money on the ground of absence of evidence that the Married Woman's Property Act had been adopted in Victoria, and the Ministry of the Commonwealth, through the Governor-General, drew the attention of His Majesty's then Government to the case, and to the advisability of its being considered whether legislation should not be undertaken to remove this inconvenience. The matter was under consideration by the late Government, I believe, but no Bill had been introduced when they left office. The present Government has therefore had the matter before them, and we have introduced the Bill to which I have now to ask your Lordships to give a Second Heading. This Bill provides that copies of all Colonial and Indian laws shall be received as evidence in English Courts if purporting to be printed by the Government printer without further proof, and makes it felony to print, or to tender in evidence, a false copy of any such law. Your Lordships will observe that this applies to laws passed in British Possessions, and the term "British Possessions" is defined in the Bill to mean any part of His Majesty's dominions exclusive of the United Kingdom, and, where parts of those dominions are under both a central and a local legislature, shall include both all parts under the central legislature and each part under a local legislature. But there is a proviso also in the Bill that His Majesty may by Order in Council extend the provisions to Cyprus and other Protectorates so that they may have the advantage of them. This Bill has been presented in the other House of Parliament and has been passed without objection. I may mention that it was considered by a Standing Committee of the House, and the only material alteration that was made in it was an alteration in a penalty that appears in one of the clauses of the Bill. Under these circumstances I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Elgin.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: It seems to me that no possible harm can be done by the Bill. I confess that some part of what the noble Lord says the Bill accomplishes appears to me to be unnecessary, but I presume he has had advice on the subject, and that he has decided that it is necessary in all the respects he spoke of. But I should have thought that in dealing with a Commonwealth case it was not necessary to prove what the Commonwealth law was, because the Court of Appeal is sitting in theory as a Commonwealth Court.
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I should like to say that I think there is a real necessity for the Bill which the noble Lord has introduced. Only a short time ago there was a very important case before us in which there was not the smallest doubt of the existence of certain Australian statutes, but the law officers of Crown were obliged to admit that they could not rely on those statutes because they had not got formal proof of what the law was. I am quite certain that in the interests of justice it is necessary that the Bill which has been introduced to your Lordships should be passed.
On Question, Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
House in Committee (according to order).
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:—
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON)in moving an Amendment to enable any officer of the Local Government Board to take samples, said that the object of the Amendment was simply to give the inspectors of the Local Government Board power to enter the factories, as it was thought better to stop the addition of harmful preservatives

225
at the factories rather than by taking samples at the shops when the article had been distributed from the factory to the retailers.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 13, after the word 'Fisheries' to insert the words 'or of the Local Government Board.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHasked whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would explain why milk-blended butter, which was to be known under some name or another to be invented by the Board of Agriculture, and which almost by universal consent seemed to be a very deleterious and objectionable substance, was to be allowed to have more water in it than ordinary good butter, or even than margarine. He knew that it was rather a controversial point, but he would like to hear from the noble Lord exactly the reasons which had induced the Government to give way on behalf of that particular substance.
EARL CARRINGTON: accept the definition that I can hardly this stuff is deleterious and harmful, but I may perhaps answer the noble Lord's question in this way: The limit of water allowed in butter is 16 per cent. and the limit allowed in margarine is 16 per cent. also. Margarine is different stuff from butter; it is a manufactured article and is completely different from butter. But if you limited the amount of moisture or of water in this milk-blended butter, or whatever it may be called in days to come, to 16 per cent., it would not be milk-blended butter at all, it would be simply butter itself. Therefore the only difference between milk-blended butter and butter is that the milk-blended butter is allowed to have 24 per cent. of moisture, while the percentage of moisture in butter is confined to 16 per cent. If the water was pumped or squeezed out of this milk-blended butter it would become butter.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Are we to understand that the only
226
difference between the two substances is that the one contains 8 per cent. more water than the other?
EARL CARRINGTON: This manufactured stuff is butter with milk pumped into it—squeezed into it—and of course in milk there is a great percentage of water, and that makes this manufactured article different from butter. That is the only difference between butter and milk-blended butter. Milk-blended butter is butter with milk blended with it, pumped into it, and the consequence is of course that there is more moisture in it than there would be in ordinary butter.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that he was somewhat comforted by the speech of the noble Lord, because he had received a letter that morning which informed him that milk-blended butter was mainly composed of cocoanut oil. He was glad to hear on the authority of the Board of Agriculture that that was not the case. With regard to the other part of the noble Lord's speech, if there was really no difference between butter and milk-blended butter excepting the extra 8 per cent. of water in the latter, it seemed to him the strongest argument for putting them all on the same footing.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:—
EARL CARRINGTON: The next Amendment which stands in my name is one for the insertion of a new paragraph (j) in Section 5 to the effect that butter, margarine, or milk-blended butter containing a preservative prohibited by any regulation made under the Act, or an amount of preservative in excess of the limit allowed by any such regulation, should be included in the list of articles the importation of which is made an offence by Section 1 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899. Preservatives are certain acids and other things which are put into this stuff to preserve it, and the object of the Amendment is to prevent boracic acid and other preservatives being put in to a dangerous extent.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 36, after the word 'purpose' to insert the following new paragraph:—'(j) Butter, margarine, or milk-blended

227
butter, which contains a preservative prohibited by any regulation made under this Act or an amount of a preservative in excess of the limit allowed by any such regulation.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:—
EARL CARRINGTON: I move to leave out the words "curd in samples," and to insert the words "any milk-blended solid other than milk-fat in any sample." That is a technical Amendment, and is intended to give the Board power to determine the amount of either milk-casein or milk-sugar, which in butter shall be regarded as presumptive evidence of adulteration, and the Amendment is moved because it is not clear that the word "curd" includes both these articles.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 32, to leave out the words 'curd in samples,' and to insert the words 'any milk-blended solid other than milk-fat in any sample.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: I also move, in line 33, to leave out from the word "butter" to the end of the clause. There is a proposal to substitute a new clause for the provisions left out.
Amendment moved—
"In line 33, to leave out from the word 'butter' to the end of the clause.—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
After Clause 6.
EARL CARRINGTON: I beg to move to insert a new clause. The words proposed to be added seem very formidable, but there really is nothing in them. The clause is only re-drafted and made much longer, and is intended to carry out the intention of paragraph (b) of the provisions of Clause 6. Paragraph (b) was accepted as an Amendment on the Report of the Commons, but it is not very clearly
228
expressed, and the Government propose to insert this new clause in its place.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 6 to insert the following new clause:—

'(1) The Local Government Board may, after such inquiry as they deem necessary, make regulations for prohibiting the use as a preservative of any substance specified in such regulations in the manufacture or preparation for sale of butter, margarine, or milk-blended butter, or for limiting the extent to which, either generally or as regards any particular substance or substances, preservatives may be used in the manufacture or preparation for sale of butter, margarine, or milk-blended butter.

'(2) Any regulations made under this section shall be notified in the London, Edinburgh, or Dublin Gazette as the case may require, and shall also be made known in such other manner as the Local Government Board may direct.

'(3) Any person who manufactures, sells, or exposes or offers for sale, or has in his possession for the purpose of sale, any butter, margarine, or milk-blended butter which contains a preservative prohibited by a regulation under this section or an amount of a preservative in excess of the limit allowed by any such regulation, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.'"—(Earl Carrington.)

New clause agreed to.
Clause 7:—
EARL CARRINGTON: I beg to move after the word "margarine" to insert the words "or on any package containing margarine, or on any label attached to a parcel of margarine." That is to say, the printed word "margarine" is to be inserted on any package or label as well as on the wrapper in which the margarine is actually handed to the customer in the shop.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 7, after the word 'margarine' to insert the words 'or on any package containing margarine or on any label attached to a parcel of margarine.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9—
EARL CARRINGTON: I move to leave out the words "used as a description of

229
or in connection with milk-blended butter" and to insert "approved as a name under which milk-blended butter may be imported or dealt with." This clause is intended to limit the power of the Board to approve all these fancy names. As the clause stands, it does not limit the Board's power in the matter of milk-blended butter.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, lines 2 and 3, to leave out 'used as a description of, or in connection with milk-blended butter' and insert 'approved as a name under which milk-blended butter may be imported or dealt with.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Does the noble Lord intend to christen this stuff himself, or to remit it to a Committee as has been suggested, or can he give us some idea of what sort of title is to be conferred upon this stuff before we lose control altogether of the Bill?
EARL CARRINGTON: I have had a sort of informal meeting with noble Lords opposite, but we have not come to any definite arrangement as to the name. I shall be only too happy to meet any suggestions that may be thrown out by noble Lords opposite.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNin moving an Amendment excepting the administrative county of London from the operation of Clause 11, said that perhaps the best way of explaining the meaning of the Amendment was to road the clause as it at present stood—
"Section 8 of the Margarine Act, 1887, shall have effect as if the words 'inspector of weights and measures' were inserted after the word 'nuisances.'"
Section 8 of the Margarine Act of 1887 was to the effect that margarine and so on that was imported was to be duly consigned as margarine—
"And it shall be lawful for any officer of His Majesty's Customs or Inland Revenue, or any medical officer of health, inspector of nuisances, or police constable authorised under Section 136 of the Food and Drugs Act to procure samples for analysis."
230
One would have supposed, therefore, that there were surely sufficient officers already who were entitled to ask for samples. But in the House of Commons it appeared that in Grand Committee—of which there was no report—this Clause 11 was inserted, the result of which was that in addition to all the officers he had mentioned, the inspector of weights and measures was authorised to ask for samples of margarine. What the special connection of the Inspector of Weights and Measures was with margarine and milk-blended butter he did not know; all he could say was that he was very glad he did not sell either margarine or milk-blended butter, because there were five or six different persons who would be authorised to go into his shop and ask for samples. His natural inclination would have been to move to strike out the clause altogether, on the ground that there were plenty of persons already authorised for the purpose. Surely police officers, medical officers of health, and others, who were already authorised were quite sufficient to ask for samples, but oven presuming that on the general question there was some reason for the addition of inspectors of weights and measures he thought there was a special reason why that should not be done in the case of the administrative county of London. In all other boroughs the inspector of weights and measures was appointed by the borough council, the same authority which appointed the inspector of nuisances, but in the administrative county of London the inspector of nuisances was appointed by the boroughs and the inspector of weights and measures was appointed by the London County Council; therefore if their Lordships inserted these words and added no qualification at all, in the administrative county of London they would be creating a duplication of authorities who would have the right to ask for samples. Therefore it seemed to him that, at all events, if they were going to multiply the number of officers who might apply for samples, there was no reason for multiplying the number of authorities who might instruct an officer to call for those samples.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 19, at the beginning of the clause, to insert 'except in the administrative county of London.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD CHEYLESMOREin supporting the Amendment, said that in the small boroughs outside London in many instances the same gentleman performed the duties of inspector of nuisances and inspector of foods and drugs as performed the duties of inspector of weights and measures. The clause, as it stood, would no doubt be of great benefit to the small boroughs outside London, but it would on the other hand not be of benefit to the administrative county of London, for the reason that the noble Earl had given. It would introduce a second authority to administer the Act for London. He could not help thinking that that would be a source of great annoyance to the small traders in London, and it meant also increasing the rates. He had never heard any complaint regarding the way in which the duties of these officers were carried out. As their Lordships were probably aware, there were twenty-eight boroughs in London at the present moment, employing some fifty or sixty inspectors of nuisances to carry out the Act, and a proof of the effectual way in which they carried out their duties was the fact that on the average some 5,000 samples of butter and margarine were taken in each year. The other inspectors were appointed by the London County Council, and if they were introduced into the Bill there would be that dual control which he had mentioned. He therefore hoped that the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture would accept the Amendment, alike on the grounds of economy, of the annoyance that would be caused by this dual inspection, and of the friction that might arise between the two local authorities in administering the same Act.
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am rather surprised at Lord Camperdown having brought forward this Amendment, because, if I may be permitted to say so, I should have thought that in his well-regulated mind, if this provision had not been in the Bill, it would have been exactly one of the faults which he would have naturally—and I think quite rightly—found with the Bill itself. This clause practically is only to clear up a doubt in the existing law, and all it attempts to do is to make the law uniform, which I think the noble Earl will acknowledge is a desirable thing in itself. The effect of
232
the noble Lord's Amendment would only be to leave the doubt which exists now still existing in London, and I do not think that he would wish to be the author of such a proposal, or the person who insisted on such a state of things continuing. Every weights and measures inspector in England is qualified to take action under every section of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act of 1889, but not under Section 8 of the Margarine Act of 1887, with regard to which there is a doubt as to his powers Clause 11 removes this anomaly, and if this Amendment is accepted, as I said before, it would continue the anomaly as far as London is concerned. The object of the Amendment, the noble Earl told us, is to prevent the London County Council from employing their weights and measures inspectors to take samples in London in place of the inspectors of the boroughs.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Not in place of—in addition to.
EARL CARRINGTON: In addition to the inspectors of the boroughs. As the noble Earl said, the inspectors of weights and measures are appointed by the London County Council, while in boroughs they are appointed by the other authorities, and I can assure the noble Lord, who has just done two years such good service as Mayor of Westminster, that there is in no way any attempt to promote friction or cause any annoyance to those boroughs which are doing such signal service for London. The only object of the clause is to clear up the doubt which exists at present in London, and I hope in the interests not only of the borough councils, but of the London County Council itself, that the noble Earl will not press or insist upon his Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNassured the noble Lord that words failed him to express his sense of the great personal compliments which had been paid to him, but in spite of those compliments he was afraid that the noble Lord had not quite appreciated the object of his Amendment. The noble Earl had said that the words were put in solely to do away with a doubt. His (Lord Camperdown's) objection was of quite a different kind. It was

233
that the words created a confusion and a conflict of jurisdiction. It was quite true that so far as all the other boroughs of the country were concerned the clause merely authorised asking for samples by another of their officers. But in London, as he had already pointed out, the effect of the clause would be quite different.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 164.)

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for Third Reading read.
Moved "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(Lord Ampthill.)
He was afraid that he must press his Amendment.
On Question whether the words "except in the administrative County of London" should be there inserted, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Plymouth, E.

Cheylesmore, L. [Teller.]

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Powis, E.

Clinton, L.

Rothes, E.

Collins, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Lansdowne, M.

Verulam, E.

De Mauley, L.

Salisbury, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Zetland, M.

Kenyon, L.

Churchill, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Lawrence, L.

Cathcart, E.

Falmouth, V.

Lovat, L.

Cawdor, E.

Hill, V.

Ludlow, L.

Clarendon, E.

Hood, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

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

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Muskerry, L.

Newton, L.

Drogheda, E.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Fortescue, E.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Haddington, E.

Alverstone, L.

Robertson, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ampthill, L.

Saltoun, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Sanderson, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Avebury, L.

Sherborne, L.

Northesk, E.

Balfour, L.

Onslow, E.

Barrymore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Selby, V.

Glantawe, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Crewe, E. [L. President.]

Allendale, L.

[Teller.]

Blyth, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Colebrooke, L.

Haversham, L.

Coleridge, L.

Hemphill, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Pirrie, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L.

Carrington, E.

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

Swaythling, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Templemore, L.

Eversley, L.

Weardale, L.

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Fitzmaurice, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid that before the Bill was read a third time he wished to explain the position of His Majesty's Government in reference to it. The Bill, from a draftsman's point of view, was not quite all that His Majesty's Government would desire, and in case the Bill was to be re-introduced next year in its present form His Majesty's Government considered that some amendment would be necessary, although they entirely agreed with the principle of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed and sent to the Commons.

CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
Order of the Day read for House to be put in Committee.
Moved, "That the House do resolve itself into the said Committee."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF HALSBUBY: Before the House goes into Committee, I would like to take this opportunity of saying a few words in regard to some of the provisions of this Bill, because really the explanation I wish to make is one that is not applicable to any of the Amendments that I have to move. I am anxious to explain why I do not move a great number of Amendments which appear to me to be appropriate to the Bill as it stands. I confess I entertain very grievous doubts whether the Bill would prove workable, even if it were amended to the extent to which I had wished to amend it. Bui I have felt that if I had moved all the Amendments which are in my mind to move—for example, upon the question whether or not the Court of Appeal, if constituted, ought to have before it the witnesses, for reasons which I gave on the Second Beading, and which I do not mean to repeat—I quite think that if that Amendment were carried it would be absolutely fatal to the Bill. I quite agree that where you are dealing with the enormous amount of work which undoubtedly would arise if such an Amendment were to pass into law, and if the Bill were to be loaded also with the necessity of having all the witnesses who had been heard before in the original trial, it undoubtedly would be fatal to the Bill, and I assure my noble friend on the Woolsack that it is not my desire—at all events, by indirect means—to wreck the Bill. I am anxious, if it is to pass, that it should pass with as little difficulty in its administration as it is possible to procure. I associate myself with my noble friend in his appeal to your Lordships that one should not be supposed to be excluded from discussing the questions arising here by reason of not being a lawyer. I believe that many of the questions which arise, and which are very broad questions—questions both of policy and of ordinary experience of life—are questions on which your Lordships are quite as well qualified as any lawyer to decide, whether you have been trained as
236
lawyers or not. No doubt a great many of your Lordships have been, in the course of presiding at quarter sessions, very familiar with the administration of justice in the very form in which this Bill brings the matter before one's mind. The only difference, I think, between my noble friend and myself is that I do not think that a lawyer ought to be excluded from having an opinion on the Bill, and that seemed to be rather the tendency in his mind. I think he was good enough to exclude myself from the category of those persons who are always against any amendment, but he attributed that attitude to lawyers generally. I think he was unjust to his profession, because I have heard of Sir Samuel Romilly, who was a lawyer, and I have heard of Jeremy Bentham, concerning whom it is hard to calculate the amount of amendment of the law for which he was responsible, to a greater degree perhaps than anybody else. Whatever may be the real questions we have to determine here they are not technical at all. I have not the least notion how it can be said that any part of this discussion shares any technicality at all. The broad question is whether, when a person has been tried, and tried openly and in the presence of a person who will direct a jury in point of law and to some extent guide their judgment, he ought to be tried again—and, as I understand, the idea of the Bill is that he should be tried again by a Committee of Judges, and tried in private. I disapprove of that. I want to make that protest: but inasmuch as there seems to be a desire in some quarters that there should be what in other aspects they avoid as much as they can—namely, a new trial—I desire that that new trial should be as efficient a new trial as it can be. I only want to make one protest. The noble Lord said that there was apparently in some minds an idea that you could get perfect wisdom and perfect knowledge in a human tribunal. I do not suppose so at all—indeed I go further than the noble Lord, because my impression is that if the first jury made a mistake the second Committee might make a mistake too, and, as I have already said, I do not imagine that you will get what is supposed to be one of the great objects to be achieved by this Bill if you have such a trial as the Bill contemplates before a Committee of Judges.

237
That is all the protest I wish to make. I have abandoned any idea of amending the Bill in any sense which would be inconsistent with the whole idea of the Bill, and therefore I give up the idea of doing what I had intended to do originally, because I think it would be an indirect way of destroying the Bill.
Let me say with regard to the Amendments I have put down—although I do not wish to discuss them at this preliminary stage—that a good many of them seem to me proper to be suggested to the noble Lord, but if he will not take them as they are, or modify them in any way, I will not press them to a division. They are not intended to obstruct the Bill in any way, but I merely suggest them to him as what I think would be desirable, and if he will take them and mould them in any way according to his fancy I shall be quite content. If not I shall not press them to a division. But there is one Amendment which I must press, and which I will deal with when it comes. On that Amendment I am afraid I shall have to divide the House, because I fear that my noble friend upon the Woolsack and myself are irreconcilably opposed on the particular matter dealt with. I, however, wish the noble Lord to understand, with regard to the other Amendments, that if he will not accept them as they are, or moderate them, I shall certainly not divide the House upon them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): I should be indeed wanting in courtesy to the noble Earl if I did not say a few words in answer to the remarks he has made to your Lordships. I am very sensible of the handsome manner in which he is treating me with regard to this Bill. I hope to be able to accept some of his Amendments, and I should be very glad if I could accept more. I will only say, with regard to the view that the legal profession ought not to be excluded from consideration of this Bill, that that thought never entered into my mind. I should be very ungenerous indeed, and a very unworthy son of the Bar, if I ever entertained such an idea. All I mean is that this ought not to be exclusively regarded as a legal question. There are questions of policy on which lay judgments are just as good as legal judgments, and all I meant when I took the liberty of warning
238
the House against a too implicit reliance upon legal authority was this—that if you search for yourselves the history of legal reform, there is no one who is familiar with it who will not say that with the best intentions and the highest motives the greatest among lawyers have distinguished themselves by resisting the most obvious and necessary reforms. That has been the systematic tendency, and I may mention one instance which occurred only four or five years ago. Before that a man could not give evidence in his own behalf in a criminal Court—an idea scarcely credible. The noble Lord brought in a Bill to amend that state of things, and I had the happiness I to assist him. With regard to that measure there was an almost universal chorus of protest among the members of the legal profession. Not more than five years have elapsed since that measure was passed, and I do not think that any-one practising at the Bar or above it would deny that that legislation of four or five years ago has been a most conspicious and real success. It was so stated by the Lord Chief Justice of England last year.
I will not further trouble your Lordships now, but I thought I ought to say a few words to acknowledge the spirit of my noble friend's remarks.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee.
Clause 1:—
THE EARL OF HALSBURYin moving an Amendment substituting the Lord Chancellor for the Lord Chief Justice as one of the nine Judges constituting the Court of Criminal Appeal, said that as this was one of the Amendments to which he had already referred, he thought he ought to say upon it that the whole theory of administration of justice had been to make the Lord Chancellor the Minister of Justice, and it appeared to him that the present Bill was somewhat irregular in dislocating that arrangement and remitting the power in a great measure to the Lord Chief Justice. He was sure that the Lord Chief Justice would not suppose that there was the least idea in his (Lord Halsbury's) mind that he was not perfectly able to do anything that could properly be done, or that his remarks had any reference in any way

239
to a sort of precedence of the hierarchy. But he thought this was an attempt to undo what had been done in the Act of 1875, and to displace the Lord Chancellor from doing what in his opinion he ought to do. The Lord Chancellor ought to be the person to decide upon questions such as this, where they were dealing with selection and so on, and it would be a reversal of the policy that had been found to be useful hitherto to substitute the Lord Chief Justice in the present Bill. For that reason he moved the Amendment, but for the reasons he had already given it was an Amendment which, although he moved it, he would not persist in unless the noble Lord (the Lord Chancellor) himself acquiesced in it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 9, to leave out 'Lord Chief Justice' and insert 'Lord Chancellor.'"—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope I can meet the noble Earl in regard to this Amendment, and in regard to two or three of those which follow. I agree to what he says about the Lord Chancellor being the responsible person relating to the administration of justice. But this is an appeal relating to criminal justice As a matter of fact since the time of the Star Chamber the Lord Chancellor has always kept out of criminal trials, and he being an Executive Officer very wisely so acts. Therefore the Lord Chief Justice would practically work the Bill, if I may use a popular expression, but still, in the matter of the selection of Judges, all the Judges will be selected with the consent of the Lord Chancellor or by the Lord Chancellor. If the noble Earl will accept this I think it might meet his views—instead of substituting the Lord Chancellor for the Lord Chief Justice perhaps he will take these words, "appointed for the purpose by the Lord Chief Justice with the consent of the Lord Chancellor." I think that would meet his point and I am quite prepared to move that if the noble Earl will agree to it.
THE EARL OF HALSBURYacquiesced.
Amendment in the form suggested by the Lord Chancellor agreed to.
THE EARL OF HALSBURYin moving an Amendment substituting the Lord Chancellor for the Lord Chief Justice as the authority vested with the appointment of the Judges constituting the proposed Court of Criminal Appeal, said that in the same section there was a question of the constitution of the Court. He confessed that he was not able to understand why nine Judges should be selected. He thought that it would be a much more appropriate thing that all the Judges of the King's Bench should be Judges in the Criminal Appeal Court; it gave a larger area of choice. He left the question of the selection untouched, or at all events to be dealt with in the way that the Lord Chancellor had suggested, and he wished to enlarge the area within which Judges might be selected for the Court of Appeal. He thought that that proposition had the advantage that great difficulty might be found if it were confined within the narrower limits, and it would be better to widen the area, because it was to be remembered that this was one of the cases in which the mere fact of delay, even a short delay, might be very serious indeed. Taking the case of capital offences the postponement of the decision of any appeal would be an unmixed evil. Nothing could be worse than what they saw in certain countries in that respect. He did not wish to particularise countries, but there were some countries in which the appeal was not heard until a year or two after the offence was committed. That was an unmixed evil, and of course if the area of selection was narrowed it rendered it more likely that there would be delay than otherwise. For that reason he suggested—although he had not himself put down an Amendment—that the whole of the King's Bench Judges should be members of the Court of Appeal.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 14, to leave out 'Lord Chief Justice' and insert 'Lord Chancellor '."—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Last year all the High Court Judges were proposed—all the High Court Judges, I think, and all the Court of Appeal.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: That would include the Equity Judges.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, but the reason the change was made in

241
the House of Commons—and it was strongly represented to me—was that it was desirable to have picked—selected—Judges—I mean not picked and selected by the Government at all, but with the consent of the Lord Chief Justice, so that you should have Judges on a rota, familar with the criminal business, and with real knowledge and experience in working this Act, which of course has undoubtedly difficulties in it. I hope that it will be allowed to remain as it is. The number is surely ample—nine in all. They may sit in three divisions. Three Courts may sit at once. It is quite certain, I think, that there will not be any pressure of work, or any arrear of work, with three Courts able to sit for that purpose. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will be content with a similar Amendment to the one which I suggested before, inasmuch as this relates, after all, to the selection of Judges, which has been always heretofore a function performed by the Lord Chancellor. I therefore suggest that it will be sufficient to say "the Lord Chief Justice of England with the consent of the Lord Chancellor." Will not that be a satisfactory solution?
LORD ALVERSTONEsuggested that the Lord Chancellor should consider the matter between then and the Report stage. At the present time under the Crown Cases Reserved Act, there were always five Judges, and he thought it would be desirable in the present case to have more than three. He was rather disposed to think that the better course would be to make all the Judges of the King's Bench Division members of the Court, but to leave their selection and the decision as to who should sit from time to time with the Lord Chief Justice with the consent of the Lord Chancellor. That was what was practically going on at the present time, because he himself had the duty of selecting, as Lord Chief Justice, who should sit as Judges in Crown Cases. He did not suppose that the Lord Chancellor wanted to be troubled with the matter at all, and he was rather disposed to think that the better course would be to have all the Judges of the King's Bench Division, and to leave the selection of the others to whomever the Lord Chancellor thought right. He had no desire whatever to intrude himself at all in the matter of the selection of Judges, in the ordinary sense
242
of the word, but he was quite satisfied that the selection of the members of the Court for the actual working of this Bill from day to day must be left in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice; otherwise the Bill would become unworkable.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I need hardly say that I will consider the matter very fully in the sense my noble and learned friend suggests. I will speak to him about it in the interval if he will allow me, and meanwhile I propose that the Amendment should be left as I have suggested, with the understanding that it may be altered on Report after consultation.
LORD ALVERSTONE: In the first two cases?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
On Question, Amendment in the form suggested by the Lord Chancellor, agreed to.
LORD ALVERSTONE LORD ALVERSTONE moved an Amendment of which the Earl of Halsbury had given notice. He thought that it would be better that if the Lord Chief Justice was not able to preside the senior member of the Court present should be the President of the Court.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 23, to leave out the words 'such member of the Court as the Lord Chief Justice directs' and to insert the words 'the senior member of the Court present.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is very satisfactory, and I think I can accept that now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
THE EARL OF HALSBURYin moving an Amendment providing that a certificate should be obtained from the Judge who originally tried the case that it was a fit case for appeal, said that it was the Amendment upon which, in the remarks

243
he had addressed to the House before their Lordships went into Committee, he had intimated that he should have to ask the House to give an opinion. The Amendment made it a condition that the opinion of the Court of Appeal should not be applied for without the certificate of the learned Judge before whom the person was tried that it was a fit case for appeal. It seemed to him that in order to render it possible to work the Bill care must be taken not to admit frivolous appeals from the 12,000 persons who were tried last year, and the equivalent number, or something like it, who would be tried in the year to come. Was it possible to suppose that everybody would not try as much as they could to get an appeal? Probably they would think that they had some chance, at all events, which at present they had not, and of course they would appeal. Why should they not appeal? It was said, "Oh! but then the Court of Appeal will refuse." But his object was to prevent an application to the Court of Appeal except upon some reasonable grounds, and he submitted to their Lordships that nothing could be more reasonable than that. It was an argument with which they were very familiar in the Courts in civil cases—whether the Judges themselves were satisfied with the verdict. But he did not ask to go so far as that, but merely wished that the Judge should say whether it was a fit case for appeal. It appeared to him that that was the only possibility of making the Bill workable at all. If they allowed a whole flood of appeals to overwhelm the Court of Appeal, not only was the whole litigation of the country sacrificed to get at the one out of 12,000 who ought to have an appeal, but it seemed to him that they would very much imperil the respect for the course of justice if they allowed everybody—even those who might have been convicted half a dozen times before—to have the right of appeal. He put the proposition in the baldest form before the House. Perhaps he might be permitted to use the weapon which the Lord Chancellor himself was fond of using, and to say that this was not a question at all for lawyers. He put it to the plain common sense of the House, what would be the inevitable result of allowing unlimited appeal, because that was what it came to unless they had some check of that sort? He begged to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 6, after the word 'appeal,' to insert the words, 'and upon the certificate of the Judge who tried him that it is a fit case for appeal.'"—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is an Amendment which really is of a very serious character. When the Bill was first introduced into the House last year the right of appeal was given without qualification, without reserve, without any preliminary permission from anyone being obtained, and that is the state of things that now exists in civil cases. My idea at that time was to place the person whose life, reputation, or liberty might be at stake in as good a position as the person who had £50 or £100 at stake, and if the Law Courts are open to the person who has a small sum of money at stake, ought they not all the more to be open to the man for whom everything he possesses, and all his chances of happiness or prosperity in the future, are at stake? That was the way in which the Bill was first introduced last-year. There was unlimited right of appeal. I was pressed and I gave way—I do not know whether unduly so, I hope not—but I accepted the suggestion that it should only be with the leave of the Court of Appeal, and that appears in the Bill. Accordingly, the Bill as it stands at the present moment provides that no man can appeal unless he gets the leave of the Court of Appeal. There is that safeguard against frivolous appeals. About the number of them I will say a word in a moment. Now an additional permission, which was not mentioned last year, is proposed to be inserted by the noble Lord, and not only is the leave of the Court of Appeal to be obtained, but also the permission of the Judge before whom the case is tried.
THE Earl of HALSBURY: Pardon me—that it is a fit case for appeal—that is all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg pardon—I accept the correction—that it is a fit case for appeal, which is exactly the same thing as giving leave of appeal. Surely you will always give leave of appeal if it is a fit case and you will never give leave to appeal if it is not a fit case. Accordingly when you say that there is to be a preliminary bar, namely, that you cannot appeal unless you get

245
the permission of the Judge, and he thinks it is a fit case, it is adding a second safeguard, which, as I venture to submit, is perfectly unnecessary to the exercise of this right, attenuated as it was from the original aspirations that I had, and it is doubly placing a person convicted of a crime at a disadvantage as compared with a person mulcted in damages, or with money at stake. Now what is the effect of the clause? It is putting two gates across the road, or making a man go through two nets before he can get through. I do not, with all respect, see what the reason of that can be, except one reason, and that is the reason of over pressure of business. Have you not an ample safeguard when you say that there can be no appeal unless the Court of Appeal gives leave? Apart from the question of plethora of business—I leave that aside—is there any reason that justice demands why you should not be content with one safeguard, namely, that the Court of Appeal itself should give preliminary leave? The question reduces itself to this. The point is as to whether, for the sake of saving expense and avoiding pressure of business and plethora of work in the Courts, you are to put in this second safeguard for the purpose of barring some who otherwise might have an appeal, and that is a point to which the noble Earl alluded. I begin by saying that there is a great number of persons convicted who know they are guilty, and who plead guilty, and if you examine the Home Office Returns—I am sorry to say I have not got them before me now; I had them last year but I did not appreciate that this point would to-day be raised—your Lordships will find that the number of appeals for mercy, for diminution of sentence, and complaining of unjust convictions are very far less than 1,000. I do not remember the numbers, but they are not very very numerous.
THE Earl of HALSBURY: Between 600 and 700.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is about right—600 or 700. We have it therefore that the number is 600 or 700. Now let us further examine what the nature of those cases is. They are quite short eases, nearly all of them; your Lordships have sat at quarter
246
sessions, and you know that most of the criminal trials are quite short and simple things, and it would not take long to decide whether leave of appeal should be given; you would immediately say, "It is quite obvious this cannot be allowed," and, as has already been said, there are only about 600 or 700 of them altogether. I ask your Lordships not to put an additional bar, and when you are giving a boon—for it is a boon, relieving the feeling of apprehension in the country, which I think is based upon the generous idea that in principle it is better that several guilty men should escape than that one innocent person should suffer—I hope there will not be any unnecessary bar placed in the way of this Bill, and that notwithstanding the admitted and immense authority of the noble Earl in this House I may be able to secure a majority.
LORD ALVERSTONEsaid that the speech which the House had just heard from the Lord Chancellor made it necessary that he should trouble their Lordships again with a few observations. He had no intention of repeating the speech he had made last year, especially as he was rejoiced to find that it had made such an impression upon the Leader of the Opposition that he had actually remembered it. He wished to enter a very respectful protest against the suggestion that because he and others ventured to think this Bill required amendment they were opposing reforms of the law. He appealed to his own record, and he was certainly not aware that on any occasion he, although a lawyer, had opposed reforms of the law which had turned out afterwards to be salutary. Certainly his recollection did not concur with the Lord Chancellor's with reference to the state of public feeling at the time when Lord Halsbury's measure was introduced. There was an enormous mass of professional feeling in favour of that Bill. He wanted to bring the mind of the House back to the point suggested by the Amendment of Lord Halsbury. It only applied to appeals upon questions of fact. Lord Halsbury did not propose to interfere with the unlimited right of appeal for mis-reception of evidence, non-reception of evidence, or misdirection of the jury; therefore in the case of an unfair trial, or an improper ruling upon a matter of law, there would be a right of appeal.

247
But what Lord Halsbury had said, and what he (Lord Alverstone) ventured to submit to their Lordships the Government ought to consider was that they ought to lock at the whole question when they were dealing with appeals upon fact. It would be brought out in relief when they considered, as they would in a few minutes, an Amendment as to whether there should be an unconditional right of appeal in capital cases. He could conceive nothing really worse in regard to trials for murder than that they should be invariably—as they would be—tried again before three Judges. But what really would happen? As the Lord Chancellor had said, in the case of a very large proportion of those who were convicted—an extremely large proportion, he believed about 95 to 96 per cent.—there was no question at all about their guilt. Under the present Bill no costs were incurred, counsel might be assigned, and there was therefore every temptation to persons to appeal, especially in the case of those familiar with crime, hardened offenders who had had experience of Courts of Criminal Law. He must again strongly press upon their Lordships that which had never met with any answer from the Lord Chancellor or anybody to whom the argument had been addressed. He felt most seriously the peril in which innocent people would be placed if it was known that there was an appeal upon all cases, even with the leave of the Court. He was satisfied that at the present time it was a great safeguard to innocent people, and a great safeguard to people who were guilty but against whom there was no clear evidence, that juries were told that they ought not to convict unless they were satisfied that the prosecution had made out their case, and that they were the final arbiters on matters of fact. The Lord Chancellor, if he would pardon him for speaking plainly on the matter, had likened this Court of Criminal Appeal to a Court concerned with Civil proceedings, and had said that one was concerned with life or liberty of the subject while the other was concerned with money—with matters involving perhaps £5 or £10. If that was the real comparison, he would go with the Lord Chancellor heart and soul, but he would again point out that the position in criminal cases was entirely different from that in civil cases. In criminal cases there were no two sides. It
248
was the glory of English law that the prosecution had to make out their case, and that the prosecution were told that the onus was upon them of proving their case; juries were told by Judges of Assize, over and over again, that they were to be satisfied that the case was made out by the prosecution, and that there was no onus upon the prisoner to answer anything unless that case was made out. It must impair the feeling on the part of juries of reluctance to convict in cases of doubt if they thought that their convictions could be set right upon appeal by superior Judges—superior lawyers. That was where the peril of the innocent man came in. Juries, knowing that there was a right of appeal, would be more willing to convict in doubtful cases, and the Court of Appeal would then have no witnesses before them, and they would be obliged to say, "Well, there has been a conviction by a jury who have heard and seen the witnesses, and we think we ought not to interfere in the matter." He had mentioned this last year, and the only observation that he could remember which had been made in reply, was that his fears were absolutely ill-founded. He had had twelve months more experience since he made the speech in question, and he had had the opportunity of talking over the matter with those of his friends who were responsible for the administration of justice, and who desired to see that nobody but guilty people were convicted, and they all felt that this unlimited appeal upon questions of fact would create very serious dangers. There was no such appeal known to the law even in civil cases—namely, that where there had been a trial by jury, Judges were to reverse the findings on fact of the jury. The Lord Chancellor had said—and he entirely agreed—that the motive of the present Bill sprang from generous feelings. He hoped the Lord Chancellor did not exclude those who differed with him from sharing in those generous feelings. They all desired that every possibility of injustice in the administration of the law should be done away with. In the last few years, no doubt, cases had occurred which had roused the public mind. In one and all of them an appeal on fact would not have been of the slightest use, because in some cases the evidence was overwhelming, and in other cases there had been improper trial, which would be dealt with by the Bill as a matter of law.

249
There was power on the part of the Home Secretary to refer any case to the Court of Appeal, and he asked the Lord Chancellor not to suggest that he and those who thought with him were trying in any way to wreck the Bill. He himself wanted to see it passed. There were many things in the Bill which were most excellent. But as regarded appeals on matters of fact, he thought they ought not to go too far, and take a step which they could not go back upon. It did not seem to him unreasonable that in matters of fact the Judge should be allowed to say, "I think this is a case in which there should be an appeal." He must reluctantly put himself in opposition to the Lord Chancellor in respect of this matter. He desired to assist him always in matters of reform, and he only opposed him on this occasion because, with his great responsibility in these matters, he felt that this unlimited power of application for leave to appeal in matters of fact was going to hamper the Courts for no useful purpose. He thought the Bill went far beyond the necessities of the ease, and for that reason he asked the Lord Chancellor to pause before he said that he would not accept the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to trouble your Lordships with a second speech, but the intrinsic importance of the case, and the fact that I cannot conceal from myself that the fate of the Bill rests upon the decision of this matter, leads me to ask your Lordships' indulgence, for a few minutes, in order that I may say a few words further in answer to what has been said by the Lord Chief Justice. Really the speech of the Lord Chief Justice was a speech against allowing an appeal on questions of fact at all. That is what the pith and marrow of his argument was. It was a concession to weakness, and one which therefore might be granted with some safeguard which otherwise would not be justifiable. Now what is the reason—if I may be excused for repeating myself—what is the real reason for saying that there ought not to be an appeal upon questions of fact? There is always an appeal in civil cases upon questions of fact.
THE Earl of HALSBURY: I cannot agree to that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend will admit that the Court is open to receive an application for appeal in civil cases, and that is all I ask here. I ask for the same right in criminal cases as already exists in civil cases. The Court is open to receive an application for appeal in civil cases; I ask that it should be open to receive an application for appeal in criminal cases too. Decisions of Courts on questions of fact are constantly being reversed or corrected in Courts of Appeal. What does the Court of Appeal in England do all the year round, sitting in two divisions, except correct the mistakes in decisions on fact or in law which have taken place at trial? And the fact that they are so occupied, and that they are constantly reversing decisions of the Courts below, and then that their decisions in turn come to your Lordships' House—and we are working very hard here—shows that there is a liability to error. I want to argue this not as a matter of feeling but as a matter of reason. There is a liability to error which affects Courts, Judges, and juries in the same way as it affects all of us, the only difference in the case of your Lordships' House being that as there is no Court of Appeal to sit over us our errors are never detected and exposed, as very often they might be if there was a Court of Appeal over us. That is the case in civil Courts. Will anyone explain to me by what miracle of nature the same men sitting as Judges, when they don the scarlet and ermine and are accompanied by trumpeters at Assize Courts—
LORD ALVERSTONE: The question has nothing to do with trumpeters.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I withdraw the expression at once. I had no idea of saying anything offensive.
LORD ALVERSTONE: The question depends upon entirely different considerations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: When they appear in their dignity as Judges in a Criminal Court why are they more free from liability to error than they are in a Civil Court? That is what I cannot understand, and I have never been able to understand it. That is precisely one

251
of those points which I say the lay mind can judge as well as anybody else. It cannot be said that the Judges are inspired in the one case and not in the other. They do their best, and show great learning and great knowledge, and they have earned the confidence of the civilised world. That I fully admit, and no one feels it more than I do; but there is liability to error, and if it exists in civil cases, and demonstrably exists, why are we to suppose that it never exists and that infallibility is substituted when the scene is changed to a Criminal Court? But it is only partial infallibility after all, because it is admitted that there ought to be an appeal upon points of law, although it is not admitted that there ought to be an appeal upon points of fact. The argument appears to be that when you go into a Criminal Court the Judge and the jury may make mistakes upon points of law but cannot make mistakes upon points of fact.
I would like to say one word about the theory that if you do not stop cases on their way to the Court of Appeal you will put in jeopardy the innocent. Just let me appeal again to the lay mind. I have done so already, and I am ashamed to repeat it, but I must do so, for I am really practically alone in fighting this Bill, because after all it requires technical knowledge What on earth—if I may ask the question—is the ground for supposing that a jury will not do their duty, but will sacrifice innocent men, merely because they know that with the leave of the Court there may be an appeal? I do not believe that that will be so, and I put it to every one of your Lordships whether it is in the least degree human, or likely, or in accordance with our nature, that when we are sitting as a jury or as Judges trying a man for his liberty or his life—whatever you please—we are going to say at the back of our minds, "Oh, there is a Court of Criminal Appeal, and the prisoner can get an appeal possibly: therefore we will not give the same attention to the case that we would otherwise give." Is this true of human nature? Is it true of Judges, or of juries, or of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions? I submit that it is not, and if that is the only argument then the only argument for not allowing appeals upon questions of fact disappears.
252
Let me correct one more thing. What is asked by this Amendment is that the Judge who presided at the trial should certify that it is a fit case for appeal. What case? Not merely trials of fact; his certificate must be obtained not where it is a question of fact alone, or mixed law and fact, but upon any other ground which appears sufficient. If this Amendment were accepted you might discover afterwards some new evidence (some crushing conclusive evidence) and yet, the certificate of the Judge not having been obtained, it would be impossible to have an appeal against the verdict of the jury. I respectfully submit to your Lordships that this is an Amendment which ought not to be allowed, and that it is really an Amendment of a very serious kind, and one which is likely to have most serious effects upon a Bill which I hope your Lordships all desire to see passed.
The EARL of HALSBUKYregretted having to speak again on the subject, but he thought the Lord Chancellor had failed to understand the objection of the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chancellor was arguing as though only one single mind was applied to a particular case. That was not so at all. It had happened again and again that juries were very much divided—some being for conviction and some for acquittal. There was not an assize and not a sessions in which that condition of things did not arise. What was the temptation when they had that condition of things, and when they had, perhaps, one member of the jury objecting on one side or the other, whether for acquittal or conviction? Was it not a temptation for the jury to say, "Well we are not agreed, but the Court of Appeal will set it right; let us return our verdict in accordance with the opinion of the majority "? It seemed to him that that would almost invariably happen. The noble Lord upon the Woolsack would not appreciate, apparently, what their objection was. The analogy which had been evoked over and over again as between the Civil and Criminal Courts was no analogy. The Lord Chancellor himself could not deny that there was no analogy. In the one case they had a plaintiff and a defendant, but in the other case there was simply a prisoner on trial, with whom the sympathy always rested, because he was on

253
his trial, and every Judge on the Bench and every Chairman of Quarter Sessions told the jury, "You must not convict unless the case has been brought home beyond all reasonable doubt." When the jury were told that, that was one thing; but if they disagreed under this new provision it would be said, if there were a majority for conviction, "Oh, do not let us discuss it any more, because the Court of Appeal will set it right." Was not that a thing likely to mislead people? He thought it was, particularly if the jury had been kept very long in Court, under conditions which were not always conditions of extreme comfort. He could not help thinking that under such circumstances it was not in human nature not yield to such temptation.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had remarked that it might be that late in the day new evidence of a startling character might be found, and that it might be found after the certificate of the Judge had been given. It might also be found after the decision of the Court of Appeal refusing the appeal. But there was always the Home Office open. If anything new turned up which required investigation the Bill wisely provided that the jurisdiction of the Home Office remained unimpaired. The real point that struck him in the Amendment of his noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury was this: Why was it regarded as wise or common-sense to exclude from giving an early opinion upon a trial that had taken place the Judge who had tried it and who knew most about it? Why should not the Judge who had presided at the trial, who had listened to every atom of the evidence, who knew every point that had been stated, be encouraged without delay to give his opinion? He approved of the Bill in principle, though some of the details were in his opinion open to criticism. It was an important subject, and it was a very great experiment. He had no doubt whatever that later on the Bill would require amendment, but he desired the Bill now to pass in the best form possible. It was not in dispute that there should be a Court, of Criminal Appeal. The Amendment did not challenge that there was to be an appeal upon any legal point. Nor did the Amendment challenge that it was open to any person convicted to
254
appeal against his sentence. That was not in question. All that was in controversy was whether it was wise and reasonable to permit the judge who had presided at a criminal trial to say whether the case was a fit case for appeal. Surely if their Lordships would look at the common sense aspect of the question, and put aside everything relating to technicality and law, the Amendment was reasonable. Here was a great change in which 10,000 or 12,000 persons who had been convicted were suddenly told, "You may appeal not only upon law, not only upon your sentence, but upon the facts." The Bill itself showed that that was so wide as to be dangerous, and if 10,000 or 12,000 people, the great majority of whom it was to be assumed were clearly guilty upon a perfectly satisfactory trial, were told without qualification that the Appeal Court was open, it was obvious that unless leave to appeal was required it would flood the tribunal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gave it as a concession last year.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he supposed the concession was given because it was thought to be just. The Bill was brought in this year, and they were now dealing I with the Bill in an amended form—he thought in an improved form in many particulars—but the changes introduced to meet the obvious suggestion that the Courts would be flooded and congested to an unworkable point, showed that the Courts could not be left open without some check, and that leave must be given by somebody. He submitted that that was common sense. There was further, the safeguard that if a man appealed wildly, recklessly and without grounds, he was admonished that his sentence might take an upward tendency instead of a downward tendency. That was a further check. Was it not a wise element of safeguard to introduce this also—not to forbid an appeal, but to say that the Judge who tried the case might give his opinion that it was a fit case to be brought into the Court of Appeal? He himself was unable to see any valid reason why the experience, the observation, and the ability of the Judge who tried the case might not be brought in to aid in this great question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is, in Section 8.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he was aware that the Judge might be asked to give his report, and he hoped on the Report Stage to present an Amendment upon that, and to require that in every case the Judge be asked to give a report of his opinion. He was quite conscious of that clause, and he thought it was imperfect because it was incomplete. He was quite alive to the fact that the Court of Appeal might, and of course in nine cases out of ten would, ask for such a report. The point he was on now was why should not the Judge, when all the facts were present to his mind, when he knew everything connected with the case and every point, not give an opinion and say whether such and such a case was fit for an appeal? They must have some confidence in those who fulfilled the great position of Judges. He admitted that there was a distinction in the position of Judges presiding at assizes. The Judges who went on circuit filled the great position of King's Bench Judges and they also would supply those who would sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Was it not reasonable to permit those Judges of Criminal Appeal when they had presided at a trial to say, "This is a fit case to go before the Court of which I may myself be a member?" The Lord Chancellor had spoken about the distinction between civil and criminal courts. Of course there was a difference, but there was a considerable analogy, and they had a right to take the teachings of that analogy as far as it went. In a civil case they must all bear in mind that if the verdict of the jury was set aside the consequence generally would be a new trial. There were other Judges, of course, besides King's Bench Judges, and that was a matter that might suggest a certain measure of criticism. Chairmen of quarter sessions and recorders were often men of great ability, and often men with a considerable knowledge of law. They presided at many trials but of course they were not in the same position, or clothed with the same rank or authority, as King's Bench Judges; but he was not aware how any ready distinction could well be drawn between them, although, if any could be suggested, he would himself be quite willing to consider it. The Lord Chancellor had alluded to this Amendment as if it were some startling and novel reform suggested by his
256
noble and learned friend. This reform was not a suggestion of yesterday, or of to-day, or of the year before. It had been dealt with as far back as 1879 by the Royal Commission on the Criminal Law Code—a great Commission presided over by Lord Blackburn and other distinguished judges—recommended this very thing, that the leave of the Judge who presided at the trial should be obtained. There was a Select Committee of the House of Commons about twenty years ago recommending the same thing. It was not novel—it was what one might expect to find in a criminal code. He himself was not at all wedded to the particular words that found their place in the present Amendment, but he would himself desire—because he thought it would be in furtherance of justice and common sense—to utilise in every reasonable way the opinion and the knowledge of the Judge who presided at the trial.
There was a point which should never be lost sight of in reference to the advantage of this Bill, and the openness of the Court to appeals upon questions of fact. That was the Home Office. He did not know the figures, but he had seen in the papers in the last few days that there were some 2,000 petitions or more presented to the Home Office every year. There might be more—he did not know the exact figures. But power was given in this Bill to the Home Office to refer any case which came before it to the Court of Criminal Appeal. What a number of cases that at once gave, without the permission or leave of any Court or any Judge, that might find their way into the Court of Criminal Appeal. The criminal had only, instead of presenting his petition through the machinery of this Bill, to present a petition to the Home Office, and if the capable and trained advisers of the Home Secretary were of opinion I that there was a fair reasonable case made, they had perfect jurisdiction under this Bill to send the appeal on to the Court of Criminal Appeal without anyone's consent or anybody's leave. The question in his opinion was one of importance. One of the great difficulties in the Bill was as to its workability. He was quite in favour of the Bill giving the relief that it sought to give, and setting up a Court of Criminal Appeal but the great question was—would it be workable?

257
The danger of its being unworkable would be found very soon after it passed into law. If it was blocked by a great rush of appellants and petitioners, it would be imperilled. It would be a great difficulty for the Judges to succeed in coping with their work, and in laying down and methodising their rules. He was of opinion that the Amendment suggested by his noble and learned friend, or some such Amendment, would be desirable, because it would tend to make the Bill work more smoothly, and to make its provisions capable of application without so much friction and difficulty, and he thought it might tend to check the presentation of petitions in frivolous cases, where there was very little chance or prospect of anything but disappointment awaiting those who had unwarily presented very thoughtless petitions.
LORD COLLINScould not help think-that the Lord Chancellor, to some extent, failed to appreciate the character of this Amendment. He thought that, rightly understood, it was calculated to give full effect to the avowed intention of the Lord Chancellor himself. It was agreed on all sides that this was a great new departure. It was the granting of an appeal on questions of fact in criminal cases. It was therefore clearly advisable, and the Lord Chancellor had admitted it, that that right ought to be fenced about with adequate safeguards. The Lord Chancellor had based his arguments largely upon the analogy of civil cases. But in civil cases they had to deal with points of law, and in a sense sometimes questions of fact became points of law. Where the element of misdirection entered, or even where the verdict was thought to be against the weight of evidence—both those heads were treated as headings of law, and the error was accordingly as to a point of law. But still the Courts in civil cases had felt that where the question, although nominally one of law—giving the right to ask for a new trial—was really a question of evidence, the first and most essential factor in dealing with that by the Court was to ascertain the opinion of the Judge who had tried the case. All those who had sat in Courts of review knew that where the question in review was, as it
258
sometimes was, though not so often as it was upon other grounds, as to whether or not the verdict was against the weight of evidence, the first thing that was insisted upon was the necessity of finding out what was the opinion of the Judge at the trial. He admitted that nowadays, when Courts were sitting in London to review cases while the Judges were on circuit, it was very often difficult or impossible to ascertain what the opinion of the Judge was, but still the theory was that it ought to be known, and immense weight was attached to it when it was known. But now they were not dealing with civil cases—questions of pounds, shillings and pence—they were dealing with a more important issue, the liberty, the character, or, it might be, even the life of the prisoner. Therefore, it seemed to him that as it was regarded as a useful provision in civil cases, it should be regarded as an indispensable provision in criminal cases, and that it should only be on the certificate of the Judge that appeal should be allowed. Here the ultimate question was, aye or no, did the jury go wrong in point of fact, did they disregard the evidence, and it was essential that the person best entitled to give an opinion upon the matter should be consulted. Therefore he thought they were giving full effect to the principles stated by the Lord Chancellor, and assimilating the Bill in that respect—as he desired it should be assimilated in other respects—to the civil procedure of the country. He made these observations with no desire to oppose any obstacle to the passing of the Bill, though in many respects he confessed he did not think it was quite so good as that introduced by the Lord Chancellor upon the recommendation of the Beck Committee. As, however, he had been Chairman of that Committee, it might be that he was somewhat prejudiced in favour of its recommendations.
LORD COLERIDGEremarked that the last speaker had expressed a wish to assimilate the present Bill to the procedure in the civil Courts, and he had introduced the fact that the Courts of review in this country desired first of all to know, as a guide to their decision, what was the opinion of the Judge who had tried the case. The noble Earl had

259
forgotten the procedure in the present Bill. If he would read Clause 8 he would see that—
"The Judge or Chairman of any Court before whom a person is convicted shall, in the case of an appeal under this Act against the conviction or against the sentence, or in the case of an application for leave to appeal under this Act, furnish to the Registrar, in accordance with the Rules of Court, his notes of the trial; and in the case of an appeal against sentence only, and in any other case if he thinks it desirable in the interests of justice to do so, or if required by the Court of Criminal Appeal, shall also furnish to the Registrar in accordance with Rules of Court, a report giving his opinion upon the case, or upon any point arising in the case."
Therefore it seemed to him that if the Bill remained as it was, unamended, it did in this matter assimilate the criminal procedure of the future to the present procedure in regard to civil cases. But the noble Lord wanted to differentiate the two proceedings, and to say that in criminal matters the report of the Judge should be a bar to the appeal. He would like to ask the noble Lord whether he would wish to introduce that principle into appeals in civil matters. The noble Lord had sat long in Court of civil appeal: would he like, looking back upon the past, to have said that in any case where the Judge had reported in favour of the jury, that should be a bar to the Court of Appeal entertaining the idea as to whether or not the verdict was against the weight of evidence? It seemed to him that the noble Lord in his argument, trenchant as it was, forgot the provisions of Clause 8. He would like to ask one question. The Court of Criminal Appeal under the Bill was enabled to hear fresh evidence, and it was given large powers to enable it to do so, because it was considered that only on the power of hearing and summoning fresh evidence could justice be done. What power, if this Amendment was carried, was given to the Judge of first instance either to hear fresh evidence, or to summon fresh evidence for the purpose of assisting his mind? None. Therefore his certificate must be based, and based solely, upon the evidence called at the trial before him, excluding the possibility of having recourse to any fresh evidence or having any powers placed in his hands to enable him to summon fresh evidence, or to see fresh documents for the purpose of enlightening or guiding his mind. It seemed to
260
him, therefore, that if this Amendment was carried, it would absolutely defeat the whole object of the Bill. The Bill was introduced last year and this year, owing to what? Owing to the existence of grave dissatisfaction at this very provision of the law which the noble Lord now wanted to introduce, namely, that the Judge of first instance should have to give leave before any appeal on a point of law could come before the Court of Criminal Appeal. That was the object of the movement outside in the public world; it was the object of that movement to get rid of that initial difficulty, and to enable persons to appeal without that bar being placed in their way.
LORD ALVERSTONE: That only relates to matters of law, not of fact.
LORD COLERIDGEsaid that he was perfectly well aware of that, but if there was dissatisfaction in the public mind that there should be a bar in matters of law, would there not be a still greater dissatisfaction in the public mind if there were to be a bar also in matters of fact? It seemed to him that the proposed Amendment cut at the root of the Bill, and he trusted that before the Amendment was carried, some of the objections with regard to its working might be answered.
LORD HEMPHILLsaid that it was impossible to hear the speeches that had been made by the noble Lords opposite without being struck with their great importance and ability. But at the same time those speeches appeared to him to be not ad idem to the Amendment now before their Lordships, because the Amendment required that the Judge at the trial should give a certificate of leave to appeal, superadded as he read the Amendment—
THE Earl of HALSBURY: "Fit case for appeal."
LORD HEMPHILLsaid that as he read the Amendment, it was to been certificate that it was a fit case—that was to say, in substance it was liberty to appeal.
THE Earl of HALSBURY: No, no—"fit case for appeal."
LORD HEMPHILLsaid he had not the Amendment before him, but the sense of it was as he had stated. How would the fact of the Judge's giving a certificate that it was a fit case, answer the objection so forcibly put by the Lord Chief Justice? The Lord Chief Justice said that if the jury were indolent or doubting—or if some of them were indolent or doubting—they might be influenced to consent to a verdict, thinking that it would be ultimately in the power of the Court of Appeal to alter or reverse that verdict. He did not see how the fact of the Judge at the trial being required to give a certificate would in any way obviate that. As it was, leave to appeal must be given by the Court above. If there was no leave of appeal required by the Court above, or no application for leave to appeal contemplated, then indeed he thought that it would be very reasonable that there should be a certificate given by the Judge who had heard the case that it was a fit case. There was one argument more, which to his mind had not been anticipated, or at least put forward, by their Lordships. Would it not be placing a Judge in a very invidious and odious position to throw upon him in a capital case the odium of refusing a certificate that it was a fit case? He could not imagine a more painful position for a Judge to be placed in in a case of treason, in a case of capital felony, or in
a case involving some aggravated political issue, than that he should be called upon to withhold from the prisoner the opportunity of going to a higher Court. The noble Lord, Lord Coleridge, had pointed out that this certificate of the Judge at the trial precluded the possibility of any advantage arising from after-discovered evidence. It was impossible to answer that question. It was impossible for the Judge at the trial to be assured that something might not turn up which would alter the aspect of the case. He could very well understand noble Lords being against appeal in criminal cases at all. He thought that was a question which was open to a great deal of debate, but it seemed to be conceded by noble Lords opposite, and especially by Lord Ashbourne, that it was desirable that there should be an appeal in criminal as well as in civil cases on matters of law. On that postulate he said with the utmost respect that this Amendment was unnecessary, that it was more than unnecessary, it was mischievous, and that it would place the Judge who was called upon to exercise that discretion in a most odious and invidious position.
On Question whether the words "and upon the certificate of the Judge who tried him that it is a fit case for appeal" be there inserted, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Plymouth, E.

Burton, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Powis, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Sutherland, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Clinton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Collins, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Churchill, V.

Dunboyne, L.

Salisbury, M.

Falkland, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Zetland, M.

Hill, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Hood, V.

Kenyon, L.

Camperdown, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lawrence, L.

Cathcart, E. [Teller.]

Lovat, L.

Cawdor, E.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Ludlow, L. [Teller.]

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

Muskerry, L.

Alverstone, L.

Newton, L.

Eldon, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Haddington, E.

Atkinson, L.

Robertson, L.

Halsbury, E.

Avebury, L.

Saltoun, L. s

Hardwicke, E.

Balfour, L.

Sanderson, L.

Northesk, E.

Barrymore, L.

Waleran, L.

Onslow, E.

Braye, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Beauchamp, E.

Selby, V.

Carrington, E.

Crewe, E. (L. President.)

Portsmouth, E.

Allendale, L. Blyth, L.

Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Colebrooke, L.

Coleridge, L.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Pirrie, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Glantawe, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

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

Swaythling, L.

De Mauley, L.

Templemore, L.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

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

Haversham, L.

Weardale, L.

Hemphill, L.

Welby, L.

Eversley, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE EARL OF HALSBURYin moving the omission of the proviso at the end of Clause 3 giving the right of appeal to a person convicted upon a charge involving sentence of death, said this Amendment was one which he thought would receive the assent of a great many persons who were favourable to the passing of the Bill. It was an Amendment which was proposed at the very last moment, not under the authority of the Government at all, giving an absolute right of appeal to every person capitally convicted. Let anyone imagine what the condition of things was. This was a thing about which there could be no doubt—that everybody, under these circumstances, would appeal. It was impossible to exaggerate the evil that would be done by that. The postponement of the execution of the sentence was one evil, no doubt, but he thought that a much greater one was the sort of feeling that must be induced by every person who was convicted, appealing and having the matter discussed over again whether or not the conviction was proper. He did not want to repeat what he had said before, but nobody who had witnessed a trial for murder in the English Courts would have failed to recognise the minute and severe care with which everything was done, and to say that there should be an appeal against sentence of death in every case was really to him intolerable. It was not in the purview of the Bill originally, and he did not think the Lord Chancellor could think it would aid the administration of justice to have such a right of appeal as that introduced.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 13, to leave out from the word 'law' to the end of the clause."—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will tell your Lordships exactly what my feeling is about this. What I am saying is not in the least, I assure the noble Earl, affected by anything except a cool view of the whole clause as it stands. I should
264
not have offered any strong resistance to the proposal to omit this clause, were it not for the consideration of the Amendment that has just been passed by the House. If that is persisted in by the House, what will be the result assuming the Bill passes? The result will be that you will have a man sentenced to death, and not allowed to go to the Court of Appeal by the interdict of the Judge who tried the case. Just think of the situation that is created by that. I think it would be a very unfortunate result, and for that reason alone I hope this Amendment will not be persisted in. Think of the situation created now. A man is tried and sentenced. Feelings are aroused—and wise men take account of feelings and try and persuade the world, and satisfy it, as I think we do, that justice is openly and fairly administered. A man is tried and sentenced. There is a good deal of doubt about his guilt or innocence. The Judge, very able, very honourable, and very upright, is supposed to have taken a "view," and he says, "No, this is a painful ordeal, but I do not see that it is a fit case"—and it would be stopped from going to the Appeal Court.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Why should it not be?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I know the noble Earl thinks it should not, but I think that that creates a situation which might lead to strain, and which would not be in the interests of justice. That is my only feeling in regard to this clause.
LORD ALVERSTONEwished to point out, if the Lord Chancellor would not think him impertinent, that his Lordship had really overlooked the provisions of the Bill. Every case of murder must be tried at the assizes, and therefore, in the first place, was presided over by one of the King's Bench Judges Every case of murder went at once to the Home Secretary and was most carefully considered

265
by him, and he consulted the Judge, and by Clause (a) of Section 19 that case could be sent at once by the Home Secretary for Appeal. Therefore the suggestion of barring a man's appeal was not consistent with the Bill. But he would respectfully point out that there was something to be said on the other side. The Lord Chancellor had said that because the House had inserted the Amendment which had just been carried, this clause ought to stand. Could there be anything really worse than that there should be, as there would be in every murder case, for there was nothing to prevent it—an appeal lodged by someone, and got up, as the Lord Chancellor knew perfectly well was very often the case, by people who had not any knowledge of the case. He was satisfied that in no case where there was any doubt would any Judge of the High Court say that it was not a fit case for appeal; and even if he did, the Homo Secretary could send it there at once over his head. Therefore, he thought it was not quite giving fair weight to what the House had decided to say that that decision made any difference in the present case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not in the least chiding or complaining. I am a Member of the House, though I very seldom vote with the majority—I hope I may some day. But I accept, as every man does, the decision of the House, and I have not made any complaint. I am only trying to point out the result. It is quite true that every Judge who tries a case will do his duty. I believe he will, whether there is an appeal or not, do his very, very best. But we all know that it is precisely because the very best Judges, with the very best intentions, take "views" that appeals are necessary.
LORD ALVERSTONE: In murder cases?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They do take "views," and they might perfectly honourably make mistakes in murder cases as well as in other cases. But at all events there is a feeling that you cannot get to the Court of Appeal. I had the Home Secretary in my mind. What you can do is this. You can get to the Court of Appeal by leave of the Home Secretary, and the consequence is
266
you are just re-introducing the very system that is thought so unsatisfactory. I hope the noble Earl will think that I want to act loyally towards him, and I do not suppose it is any use our offering opposition to the noble Earl if he wishes to go to a division.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he did not like to hear the Lord Chancellor speak as if the reason was all on his side of the House and the voting all on theirs. Let them take the particular Amendment, and consider it by itself, on its own merits and its own words. That was the way the clause stood until almost the last hour of going to Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But for the last Amendment I should not have resisted it.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he quite recognised that, but the Amendment introduced in another place was not defensible on its own merits. It weakened the sense of responsibility in the very case where it was most desirable that that it should be kept, so that the jury should feel that they were the arbiters of a man's life or death, and that upon them rested an immense responsibility which could not be devolved upon anybody else. The interest of the unfortunate criminal would be, of course, to rush into the Court of Appeal, and everyone would see that, that was a matter which was evidently open to the gravest objection, and the proposal could not stand serious criticism. If any Judge felt that in such an immense question as a man's life any kind of doubt was involved, he would at once say, "This is a fit case for appeal." If he did not do it, all the man had to do was to send in a memorial to the Home Office, and if the Home Office thought there was any kind of reason for an appeal, the matter would go to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this clause wants alteration, and I imagine the noble Earl will agree with me that it does. I am very happy to agree with him in any way, and I hope

267
he will agree with me in this. I propose the Amendment that I have inserted in the Paper, so that the clause shall read in this way:—
"The Court of Criminal Appeal on any such appeal against conviction snail allow the appeal, if they think that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence, or that the judgment of the Court before whom the appellant was convicted should be set aside on the ground of a wrong decision of any question of law, or that upon any ground there was a miscarriage of justice."
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 22, to leave out from the word 'on' to the word 'or' in line 24, and to insert the words 'the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence."
"In line 27, to leave out the words 'or fact or of mixed law and fact,' and insert the words 'or that on any ground there was a miscarriage of justice.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE Earl of HALSBURY: I quite agree with that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether I am too particular', but I think it is best to put in the words "warranted in law by the verdict." It may be that it is implicitly contained in the clause, but I think it is best to insert those words.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 1, after the word 'sentence' to insert the words 'warranted in law by the verdict.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is very much the same, my Lords; it is really to carry out what is the purpose of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 9, after the word 'proper' to insert the words 'and as may be warranted in law by the verdict on the count or part of the indictment on which the Court consider that the appellant has been properly convicted.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Further drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wish to put in a provision that the rules that are to be made shall enable any convicted person to present his case and argument in writing instead of by oral argument, and that any case or argument so presented shall be considered by the Court. That will make it unnecessary for an appellant who is a poor man either to attend and appeal himself or to send a solicitor; he may send a written application.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 28, after the word 'conviction' to insert the words 'such rules shall enable any convicted person to present his case and his argument in writing instead of by oral argument if he so desires. Any case or argument so presented shall be considered by the Court.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The purpose of this Amendment is this; according to the Bill as it stands now evidence may be taken by the Court, and I think this is quite clear—that no sentence ought to be increased by reason of any new evidence that is not before the jury.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 14, to leave out subsection (J). In line 19, after the word 'Court' to insert the words 'provided that in no case shall any sentence be increased by reason of or in consideration of any evidence that was not given at the trial.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:—
LORD ALVERSTONEsaid he did not wish to move a formal Amendment, but he hoped the Lord Chancellor would kindly consider this clause between then und the Report stage. He was quite satisfied that in its present form it would never work, and that it was only interposing the Registrar to put papers in order for the Court. But his real objection was that if the Bill was going to be worked—as he was sure it would be—loyally and effectually, it was the Court of Appeal which ought to decide whether a case was one which should be dealt with summarily. He did not like deputing or delegating to any official, however good he might be, the duty of picking out certain cases and saying that they were so unsubstantial that they ought to be referred to the Court at once for decision. He thought the Lord Chancellor would bear him out in saying that very often it was impossiable to tell, until a case had been partially inquired into, whether or not there was any substantial point in it, and he thought it would be putting the appellant at a disadvantage if the Registrar was to be allowed to pick out cases and say, "These appear to me to be frivolous, and they ought to be dealt with summarily." Let the Court do its work itself. It was important work, and ought to be gravely done, and feeling, as he did, that this was a new jurisdiction of a very important character, he objected on principle to anybody under the status of a Judge saying that cases were such that they should be dealt with in a summary way. He was sure it would increase the work, and he hoped the Lord Chancellor would be kind enough to consider, between then and the Report stage, whether that subsection ought to stand. If it did stand, it would require either very considerable additional enactments, or else to be supplemented by rules.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will of course consider the matter, and I shall be very glad if my noble and learned friend will speak to me about it. Of course the purpose of the clause is, not to allow the registrar to decide anything, but if he sees anything which is really absurd—as for example a claim to appeal on the
270
ground of some great public event or anything of that sort—he may show it to the Court in order that the Court may deal with it. It is, after all, only a very small matter, but as I say, I am quite willing to consider it.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have a small Amendment to move with reference to the matter of the shorthand notes; I want to put in the words "directed to be made by the registrar."
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 29, to leave out the word 'required' and insert the words 'directed to be made by the registrar."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I want to say a word if I may—but I am afraid the noble Earl (Lord Halsbury) is away—about this clause. I should like upon Report to make a little alteration in the clause. I think it is anomalous that the Court of Criminal Appeal should sit, and that their registrar should sit alongside of them as one of the Rule Committee, and that there should be different people, clerks of the peace and so forth. I think the form of words ought to be varied, so as to bring in "with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, with the advice and assistance of the Committee hereinafter mentioned."
LORD ASHBOURNE: A point that occurs to me is this. I am sure it is a mere slip, but this clause provides that the Rule Committee may act by any five of their number, and according to the way the clause is drafted it is quite possible to make up the five without putting on a single Judge.
LORD ALVERSTONE: That would be met by the alteration which the Lord Cnancollor proposes.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 165.)

FATAL ACCIDENTS (DAMAGES) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he knew it required a certain amount of indulgence on the part of the House for him to raise any question in connection with this Bill, because, after all, it was purely a legal matter, and he did not know whether or not he ought to appeal to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for an answer. The noble Lord (Lord Courtney) had made himself responsible for the Bill, and had introduced it at a very late period of the session, and under circumstances which, he thought, were not altogether convenient. But it might be that the point on which he wanted information was one upon which only someone learned in the law could satisfy him. The words of Clause 1 were very wide. They enacted that there should not be taken into account any sum paid or payable on the death of a deceased person—deceased by accident, of course, that meant—under any contract of assurance or insurance, whether made before or after the passing of the Act. They had all recently had very serious obligations put upon them, as householders, with regard to their domestic servants and others, if they should happen to meet with death in the course of the discharge of their service. The point he wanted to put was this. Supposing, as a prudent man, he had insured his servant's life against accidents, and he was killed. He thought he was right in supposing that if he paid the premiums, and took out the policy in his own name, the amount insured would be paid to him, and he could use it as a set-off against the amount in which he was cast for damages. For instance, if the verdict of the jury said that the widow was to have £500, and he had taken out a policy for £300, he understood that in that case he would only have to pay £200. Against that he had nothing to say. But if, before the passing of
272
this Act, he had givem his servant the premiums, or had taken out the policy in his servant's name, then would not the effect of the Bill be that he would not only have to pay the whole £500 which the jury awarded to the widow, but that the widow would also get the proceeds of the policy of insurance? If that were so, he thought it was very unfair, and at any rate he thought they ought to know what they were doing. That was the first of the two questions to which he wanted an answer. Then there was a larger question even than that. Men dealt with then-savings in different ways. Some men were provident by laying up sums year by year, and investing them. He could understand a man young in life thinking he had a better chance of getting a better sum for those he might leave behind him by taking that course than by insuring his life, and if it was the case that a man did that, and accumulated a considerable sum, and left it behind him, would not that be regarded as a set-off in the same way as if he had taken out a policy of insurance? He spoke with diffidence, but he understood the definition of Lord Campbell's Act was this—that the damages given were not to be sentimental damages, but that the widow, or other person left behind, was to be put in the same pecuniary position as she would have been in if the husband had not been killed. Now if the interpretation of the law was amended—as he was afraid it was—by the Bill, he thought they would be giving a wholly undue preference to thrift by insurance as compared with thrift by any other means. He did not wish to enlarge upon it—he was painfully aware that it was a matter which was perhaps rather too intricate and subtle for a layman to deal with—but he thought that considering the number of people affected by the Act which had been passed last year, obliging them to pay compensation in the case of the death of their servants, the case was one of sufficient importance to have been dealt with earlier in the session, and with greater deliberation than was possible at the present time. However, he had done his duty in calling attention to the matter, and he would feel very much obliged if those who were really responsible would answer his question.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHsaid the noble Lord had appealed to him,

273
but he had also, at the same time, appealed to a higher authority. He confessed that he himself was not so learned in the law as to be able to give the noble Lord a perfectly satisfactory answer. But in answer to the first Question, he might say that the Bill, of course, only applied to actions taken under Lord Campbell's Act, and the effect of it was simply that in assessing the damages which might be obtained by the friends and dependants of a deceased man under that Act there should not be deducted from the amount of damages payable to the deceased's representatives any amount which might be paid under a policy of insurance taken out on the deceased man's life. In the case put by the noble Lord, of a man taking out a policy to provide against a loss which might be sustained under the Workmen's Compensation Act of last year, there could be no doubt that in such a case the master took out a policy of insurance, and the master received the amount of that policy of insurance, which helped him to pay the compensation awarded. In that sense it was deducted from the amount which he had to pay, but it was not deducted from the amount received by the deceased man's representatives. That, he took it, was the right view of the case. Then the noble Lord had suggested that possibly a master might have taken out a policy and given it to his servant. If that was the case—and he confessed he thought it was an extremely unusual and unlikely case—then a question might arise as to whether the representatives of the man would not be entitled both to the policy and to the compensation. But if such an unlikely case should occur—he was not aware that it had occurred—it was one which could be immediately rectified, because the policy could be dropped, and a new policy taken out in the name of the master, to insure him against the loss to which he was subject, in certain events, under the Act, and to the extent of that policy he would receive the money to help him to pay the compensation which would otherwise be payable by him without any such help. Then the noble Lord had asked whether the provisions of the Bill did not give preference to thrift by insurance as against thrift by saving. He had no doubt it was open to question whether there should be any deduction whatever from the compensation paid to the representatives of deceased men
274
through negligence of another, on account of the fact that the deceased man had saved money. But this Bill was directed expressly to the injustice which had arisen under the operation of Lord Campbell's Act in respect to policies of insurance, which he might remind their Lordships had been dealt with in two private Acts this year. It was to that purpose, and to that purpose alone, that the Bill was directed, and it was that evil alone which was sought to be remedied. A further Bill might hereafter be necessary to make the law logical in all its application, but he submitted that it was no reason for delaying the present Bill to say that it was possible to conceive of other cases in which the operation of the law of damages told improperly against thrift exercised by a man who saved money otherwise than by taking out a policy of insurance.
LORD ALVERSTONEthought that the noble Lord had answered the questions of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but he himself would have liked to hear something about the provisions of the Bill itself. It appeared that a man might be absolutely insured against the very accident that killed him, and yet the master might have to pay compensation in full, even though the dependants of the deceased man might be receiving the full amount awarded under the policy of insurance. That principle might be right or it might be wrong, but it was a principle to which he did not think the House ought to assent without argument.
LORD STANLEY OFALDEKLEYquite admitted that if a man insured his servant, and took out the policy of insurance in the name of his servant in January of this year, the policy to run to December, there might he a few months during which the servant might get the amount insured under that policy and also get compensation. But that was a very transient risk, because of course no employer would in future dream of taking out a policy in the name of his servant. Therefore it was a very accidental and chance risk that might arise, and not one of any great importance with reference to permanent legislation.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid that this was a Bill which both he and the other members of His Majesty's Government

275
were very anxious to see passed. The noble Lord (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) had asked—he did not know whether he was aware of it—questions in reference to one of the most difficult points of the law, namely, the measurement of damages. He would answer the noble Lord's questions in three sentences. The noble Lord's first question was whether, if he insured himself against having to pay damages to a servant under the new Act, he would have to pay not only the damages to the servant, but also the money he got from the insurance policy. No, he would get that for himself. The second question was whether, if he were bountiful enough to hand over to his servant a policy taken out at his own cost, the servant would then get the benefit of that policy. Yes, because he would have made a present to the servant, and it was his own act which had conferred that benefit upon the servant. The third question was, what was the difference in fairness between the case of a man killed by the negligence of another, he being himself a wealthy man, leaving his dependants well off by invested money, and the case of a man who had insured his life? The answer to that was that under Lord Campbell's Act the law took into account the sum of money, or the other advantages, left to the widow and children. But in the case of an insurance policy, there was a difference in some respects, because it was a policy effected against the accident, the benefit of which only arose upon the death itself, and to give that benefit to the person who was in the position of being the defendant in the action would be to give the benefit to the wrong-doer—the person guilty of negligence.
Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

SALMON AND FRESH WATER FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order).
EARL CARMNGTON: My Lords, I have only one Amendment to move, and that is an Amendment to Clause 4 of the Bill. That clause prescribes the machinery for making Provisional Orders under this Bill. The procedure is that the Board
276
must make a local inquiry before making an Order. After the draft Order is made they may hold a second local inquiry if objections are made to the Order. The clause has been amended in the Commons so as to provide that the Board must hold a second local inquiry if the county council object to the Order, and, therefore, the clause would read thus—
"The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, if they think it expedient, and shall if any county council objects to the draft Order, hold a local inquiry by an inspector or other officer of the Board with respect to any objections made to the draft Order, and shall after considering all such objections and the Report of the officer who held the inquiry (if any) thereon, settle the terms of the draft Order."
I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be considered. The other two Amendments on Clause 6 are merely privilege Amendments, which I need not read, inserting the words, "at the expense of the county councils." I beg to move that the Commons Amendment to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill be agreed to.
Moved, "That the Commons Amendments be agreed to."—(Earl Carrington.)
LORD NEWTONasked why the Amendments did not appear on the Paper. The explanation of the noble Earl might have been extremely lucid, but he could not follow it altogether. The method adopted on this occasion did not seem a satisfactory kind of precedent, and he would be glad if the noble Lord would be good enough to explain why the Amendments had not been printed.
EARL CARRINGTON: If the noble Lord wishes, I can take it to-morrow, but the Amendments are really very formal—there is really nothing in them—and the one I tried to explain to the House is the only one that requires explanation. The others are merely privilege Amendments, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not raise any objections.
LORD NEWTONsaid he did not want to raise any objection, but it seemed to him rather an unbusiness-like way of doing things. He hoped the same principle was not going to be applied to all the other Bills which were coming before the House.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, I am glad to think—and I am sure your Lordships will all be very much relieved to hear—that this formidable-looking Bill of 95 clauses—formidable, I think, at any time of the session, but especially when introduced into this House at this period of the session—will not necessitate any long introduction from me. I must, indeed, frankly admit that I should not be capable of giving it even if it were necessary for me to do so. It is a Bill which I think has been agreed upon substantially, and I have no doubt that Lord Onslow will be able to explain to your Lordships a little more about it than I can.
From time to time, as your Lordships are aware, particular local authorities bring in Bills for local Acts containing various provisions as to sanitary and police matters. These provisions are carefully considered by a Special Committee of the House of Commons, called the Police and Sanitary Committee, and also by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords. The consequence is that there are a number of clauses the provisions of which are seldom or never refused by Parliament when local authorities apply for them. The Police and Sanitary Committee have on several occasions in recent years referred in their Reports to the desirability of including in a Public Act many of the provisions which are so frequently introduced into Bills for local Acts and accepted by Parliament. Some of the clauses in this Bill are adoptive, and arrangements can be made under which they, or such of them as are needed in a particular district, can be put in force. The local authority will be able to obtain the benefit of those clauses of this Bill which will apply to their particular locality without being obliged to promote a Bill in Parliament at considerable expense. I believe the Lord Chairman agrees to the expediency of this being done, and it will be remembered by your Lordships that on the 7th March last my
278
noble friend Lord Onslow called attention to the large number of local Acts which were passed in recent sessions for private Bills introduced for conferring sanitary powers upon particular authorities, and that he asked whether the time had not arrived for the extension of the Public Acts. In reply my noble friend Lord Carrington expressed sympathy on behalf of the Government with the object of the present Bill.
It may be mentioned that a somewhat similar Bill to this was passed in the year 1893, amending an Act of the same character of 1875. This has proved of very much service, and up to the end of last year I may say that 965 urban and 360 rural authorities had adopted the whole or portions of the Act. The present Bill was introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Wilson, who at present occupies the position of Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Committee, which at one time, as your Lordships know, was occupied, to the great advantage of the public, by Lord Fitzmaurice. This Bill has undergone considerable revision in Standing Committee in another place, and all clauses likely to be controversial have been eliminated, while various necessary alterations were made in other clauses at the instance of the Local Government Board and of the Secretary of State. The Bill was supported by the Government in the House of Commons, although it was a Private Member's Bill, and it was starred by the Government at the Report stage, as they think it very important that the Bill should be passed this session, and if it had not been starred, as your Lordships are aware, there would have been no chance of its being made law this session.
The Bill is divided into ten parts, which deal with such matters as streets and buildings, sanitary provisions; infectious diseases, common lodging houses, recreation grounds, police, fire brigades, sky signs and hoardings, and other miscellaneous subjects. As I say, care has been taken to eliminate any clauses that might have led to controversy. Clause 3, which is rather an important clause, provides that on the application of the local authority the Local Government Board, or, as regards police clauses, the Secretary of State, may declare any

279
section to be in force in a particular district, and that, as I have said before, will obviate the necessity and the great expense of local authorities coming to Parliament for special Bills.
It appears to be unnecessary to go further into the provisions of the Bill, even if there were time to do so. As I say, I believe it contains no novel or controversial proposals, and the Government cordially hope that it will be passed this session. I see that Lord Onslow has put down a notice that in the event of the Bill being read a second time by the House it be referred to a Select Committee. The Government, on the understanding that such Committee would meet forthwith and examine the Bill with a view to see that it answers its purpose—the purpose which I have described generally to your Lordships—and also on the understanding that the passing of the measure would not be endangered, would be prepared to assent to that course. But of course it must be realised that if any serious objection is taken to the Bill, or any substantial alteration made, it will be quite impossible for the Bill to become law this session.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Allendale.)
THE Earl of ONSLOW: The noble Lord has very truly said that when I inquired whether His Majesty's Government would be disposed to accept a Bill amending the Public Health Act I was received with much sympathy by the President of the Board of Agriculture, but was afforded very little hope that anything would be done. However, by the enterprise of the gentleman referred to in the other House of Parliament who prepared this Bill, the Bill has now been laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House. I regret that some clauses, at any rate, which the noble Lord described as being possibly contentious have been struck out of the Bill, because I think many of them would have been of considerable value. However, I welcome the Bill as far as it goes, and I am glad that its Second Reading has been moved, not by a private Member of your Lordships'" House, but by the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board. The reason I shall presently ask your Lordships to send the Bill to a small
280
Select Committee is that in the course of its passage in another place it has been materially altered in many points of drafting. It was originally intended to represent the clauses which are usually introduced into private Bills as revised by the Police and Sanitary Committee in another place, and by my Department in your Lordships' House, but it bears now upon it the stamp of the drafting of the Local Government Board, and I think that before your Lordships pass it into law it is very desirable that the Bill should be carefully examined—not upon any material points of policy or of procedure, but mainly to see that it falls in line with the various local Acts which have been passed in different parts of England. I think that a Bill of this kind is desirable every few years, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. I also hope that you will accede to the Motion which I shall presently make, in regard to which I will undertake that it will be a very short time before the Bill is returned to your Lordships' House. The acceptance of my Motion will save your Lordships' time, because the matters with which the Bills deals will be fully discussed in Committee, and your Lordships will then have an opportunity of considering the Report of the Committee, and furthermore the referring of it to a Committee will in no way interfere with any noble Lord who may wish to add to or amend the Bill doing so at a subsequent stage.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am very glad that the noble Lord intends to move that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. An inquiry of the kind may afford a very valuable opportunity to any noble Lords who desire to make suggestions in regard to the Bill. My attention was drawn to it by some friends of mine who mentioned to me a particular clause of the Bill. It is Clause 75, which deals with the question of recreation grounds. That is a clause which, as drawn, appears to put it in the power of local authorities to make use of premises connected with these recreation grounds for the purpose of carrying on a trade in intoxicating liquors. That seems to me to be a very dangerous permission, and I think the matter requires to be looked into. But this led me to make some inquiries into the Parliamentary history of this

281
Bill, which is really rather a remarkable one. The Lord Chairman said something a moment ago of the enterprise which had been shown by its promotors. Let me tell your Lordships how that enterprise operated. I am told—and the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill will no doubt correct me if I have been misinformed—that the Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on the 1st July. It then contained 142 clauses. The Committee dealt with it in one sitting. There were alterations covering 65 pages. During half the time no quorum of the Committee was present. The question of the regularity of the proceedings was afterwards raised in the House of Commons, and the Chairman of the Committee admitted fully that there had been irregularity. The Bill was thereupon re-committed. It came back to the House on the 29th July with 97 alterations, and it was not reprinted until the Report stage of the Bill had been taken at half-past three in the morning. The particular clause in which I have taken a slight interest was never before the House of Commons at all. It was not in the Bill at all on the occasion of the Second Reading, and when the Report stage was reached at an early hour of the morning the clause in question was not in print. We hear a great deal in these days of the manner in which we transact our proceedings, and I venture to think that if we ever have to make a collection of the curiosities of Parliamentary life the case which I have described to your Lordships will deserve a place in our museum.
LORD FITZMAURICE: Perhaps I may be able to throw a little light upon some of the points which have been mentioned, and I venture to do so because my noble friend who introduced this Bill mentioned my name in connection with it, I having been some time Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Committee of the House of Commons, from the prolonged labours of which Committee this Bill has originated. Year after year, not only in the year in which I was Chairman, but long before and after, Reports came from that Committee under the chairmanship of such men as Mr. Walter Long (who I think may really be said to have been the founder of these proposals), Sir Henry Fowler, Mr. McKenna, and others, suggesting that the time had come when all these multifarious clauses which were put
282
into private Bills, and in regard to which a certain similarity of practice had grown up, should be incorporated, as in 1890, in one Bill, so as to save the local authorities the enormous expense and waste of time which they are put to by each of them individually having to bring in private Bills of their own. Nevertheless it was only gradually that agreement could be come to upon many of these questions. But now at length, owing largely to the labours of the gentleman whose name has been mentioned, and of whom I think no praise can possibly be too high—I mean Mr. Wilson—the present Bill has been prepared. I had the advantage of Mr. Wilson's presence on the Committee, and—I say it in no spirit of flattery—any success the Committee obtained under my chairmanship was very largely due to his presence and assistance; and he very naturally, in the course of time, became chairman of it. Now the time has come, I think in the opinion of everybody, when those clauses can be, with great public advantage, incorporated in one Bill, following the precedent of 1890. If any criticism can be made it is that probably this might have been done with advantage some years ago. But there were certain rather controversial questions involved in these matters; and, when the Bill was brought in, I understand that some of those matters, which still remained slightly controversial, were in the Bill. They, however, fortunately, as I should think, for the progress of the Bill, though on its merits I regret them, were removed at one stage or another in the House of Commons in order to facilitate the undisputed passage of the Bill. I allude more particularly to what are known as the milk clauses of the Bill, with regard to which there was an old controversy, which I was in hopes had terminated, as to what were the powers to be given to local authorities to inspect dairies and other places outside their own jurisdiction. I understand, however, that the President of the Local Government Board has got another Bill which, even if it does not pass this year, will deal with this question very largely, and will certainly be brought before Parliament next year. Then there was also a question about slaughter-houses, with regard to which, I may remind the House, the noble Lord brought in last year a Bill with which I personally had every sympathy. But there again controversy arose, because there was a

283
very powerful interest represented by the butchers of the country, who thought, like Alexander the Coppersmith of old, that their industry was going to suffer some great harm; and those clauses also were removed. Then there were clauses relating to a matter which I remember because it was more prominent than any other while I was chairman of the Committee—clauses relating to that very interesting and exciting topic as to when a common drain was to become a sewer. I am sure the Lord Chairman will agree with me that that question has caused in its time, and to him personally no doubt as Chairman, a very great amount of trouble and anxiety. But I understand that those clauses have also disappeared, because at length, after many years, it has been found possible to get a decision from the High Court to clear away the interesting accumulation, if I may use the expression, of legal rubbish which had got piled up around this apparently simple but really very complicated question. Therefore, the net result is, that by this decision the Bill practically became an undisputed Bill; and, although I think nobody can possibly complain of the noble Marquess' (the Marquess of Lansdowne) having called attention to what passed in the House of Commons, yet, as a matter of fact, the explanation is very simple, namely, that when this Bill really got into Committee and at subsequent stages it had become practically an undisputed Bill, and as people considered that there was going to be no controversy in the Committee, it was thought that it would be allowed to pass through in the rather rapid—and I admit theoretically peculiar—manner which the noble Marquess has not unnaturally mentioned to your Lordships' House. I hope I have been able to give the explanation of those circumstances; and if there are any cases like that which was mentioned just now of power to grant licences for alcoholic liquors having crept into the Bill in some unobserved and objectionable manner, I think the Committee will have no difficulty in dealing with them. But I most earnestly hope that, after the years of labour given by the Police and Sanitary Committee of the House of Commons, this Bill may be allowed to pass into law. And I hope your Lordships will also allow me to say that the Government, in starring this Bill, have desired to show that the charge which is occasionally
284
made—as I think unjustly—against those who sit on this side of the House and against this Government, that they are bringing in large and controversial measures and forgetting the large and important, though humbler, class of legislation which deals with the social interests of the people and those matters which come home to them in their hearths and homes, is not a just one, and that one proof of it is that the Government has taken under its protection, with every desire of passing it even late in the session, this long and, I venture to say, important Bill in order that it may find its way at last on to the Statute-book.
On Question, Motion agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I now move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. And, in doing so, I venture to say that I hope your Lordships will not expect the Select Committee either to re-insert any of those somewhat controversial clauses which have been referred to, or, I am afraid, to deal very exhaustively with the question raised by the noble Lord the Marquess of Lansdowne. I quite agree that it is a very important question, and one which it would be better to leave to the House. As I said before, the House will have ample opportunities of considering the Bill at a later stage; and I am looking merely to the work of the Committee to put it into proper drafting shape, so that your Lordships may, when it comes back from the Committee, consider any important points of policy which may arise upon the Bill.
Moved "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD ALLENDALE: As I indicated in the few remarks which I made in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, I concur on behalf of the Government with the proposal of the Lord Chairman to refer the measure to a Select Committee. With reference to the remark made by the Marquess of Lansdowne a little while ago, I have just been informed that the clause in question to which he took exception, although for some reason it was not printed in the Bill, had been in print for a month, and had been discussed by the Committee; but, owing to some

285
informality, it was not included in the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

FINANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

VACCINATION BILL.
House in Committee, (according to order.)
Clause 1:—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he desired to move to leave out of line 11 the words "either parent or such other person as the case may be "in order to insert" he." The purport of the Amendment was to put the Bill back into the very form in which the Government introduced it in the other House of Parliament. On its introduction, it was stated perfectly correctly that the Bill was intended to substitute a statutory declaration for the certificate of exemption now to be obtained by the conscientious objector, and it put the responsibility of making that declaration upon the same person as was responsible for the custody of the child, upon the only person subject to the penalty, thus maintaining the law on a perfectly logical basis. It had the additional advantage claimed for it of giving a fair chance of exercising the privilege. Assuming that the English law should be what it was made in 1898—he was not going to raise any controversial question on that—he thought the original proposal of the Government would be a better method of carrying out the law than that which now obtained in the Bill. In some mysterious way during the passage of the Bill through the other House of Parliament a change had been imposed upon the Government. He believed it was contrary to their will that they should be obliged to accept the proposal which entitled either parent to make the declaration. It was not easy to find out the reason for this change, for there was no official record kept of the proceedings in the Standing Committee. It was not possible to refer to any volume of Hansard, but he had had,
286
by accident, put into his hand a paper called The Vaccination Inquirer. It was not a class of literature which he generally spent much time in reading, but he was bound to say for its credit that it was extremely useful on this occasion, and it gave what he had no doubt was as correct an account as they could make it of the proceedings in the Committee. It was, at any rate, perfectly clear that both the President of the Local Government Board, Mr. John Burns, and Dr. Macnamara, his Parliamentary Secretary, did all they possible could to prevent the Committee adopting the Amendment. They and others used, in his opinion, very cogent arguments against it. They pointed out that it was a revolutionary change in English law, and that up to the present it had been a universal proposition that the primary responsibility for the child rested on the father. The father was the responsible person to see that the child went to school and that he or she was vaccinated, and the law looked to him to carry out all the obligations of parentage. He thought it was obviously right, and so far as he had seen from the paper the only argument that was used against it was that it might take the father from a day's work to make the statutory declaration. He doubted even whether that was correct, because the next speaker said that there were 30,000 persons in England qualified to take the declaration which the parent now had to make, and surely on a Saturday afternoon, or at some time when the father was at leisure, he could make the declaration. If it were to be a choice between the two parents as to who was to walk any distance to do it, surely it would be fairer and more right that the obligation should be put upon the father than upon the mother, who had a great deal to do. He was hopeful that, after what Mr. Burns and Dr. Macnamara had said in the other House and in the Committee, they would not have to go to a division upon the subject. He had, however, another argument to use. He thought, as their Lordships knew, it was wrong that the Scottish law should be changed and assimilated to the English law. He was beaten upon that largely by the influence of the noble Viscount on the front bench, who made a speech which had great power with their Lordships. The force of the speech was

287
that it was not competent to make a difference between English and Scottish law. He now appealed to those who were influenced by the argument. If they were going to keep the law in the two countries the same, they must put the Bill back into the condition in which it was introduced. It was the Government's first proposal that the obligation should be put upon the male parent, and that was their deliberate opinion still, because, after the proceedings of the Committee, they introduced the Scottish Bill in the same form as they originally introduced this Bill. If they were sinners, they were impenitent sinners. He appealed to them to adhere to their original view and to be consistent. He would not labour the point, but he hoped he would hear that the Government were willing to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In line 11, leave out the words 'either parent or such other person as may be' and insert the word 'be'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD ALLENDALEsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment. The provision as to the parent or other person having the custody of the child making application for exemption was governed by Section 2 of the Vaccination Act, 1878, and the effect of that was to render it necessary for the father, under ordinary circumstances, to obtain the certificate of conscientious objection, he being the person liable for prosecution for neglect to have the child vaccinated. The mother was not as the law stood in such a case eligible to attend. The Bill proposed to substitute a statutory declaration for the certificate of exemption required under the Act which had been referred to. The Bill, as introduced, followed the terms of Section 2 of the Act of 1898, and it would, under ordinary circumstances have rendered it necessary for the father to make the declaration just as he had hitherto been the person to obtain the certificate of conscientious exemption. Lord Balfour said he wished to restore the Bill to that condition. It was altered in Standing Committee. The Government were beaten over it, and they proposed to take their defeat. An Amendment in Committee was proposed by Mr. Pickersgill to substitute for the word "he" the words "either
288
parent, or such other person as the case may be," and as he had said, it was carried. The considerations which had been urged by Lord Balfour of Burleigh were present to the Government's mind when the Bill was framed, but there could be no doubt although the noble Lord minimised it, that cases did occur in which it was inconvenient and difficult for the father to attend and obtain the exemption certificate, and the mother could more readily do so. It had to be borne in mind that, if the father desired to have the child vaccinated, he could have it vaccinated, even though the mother had made the declaration. The feeling in favour of so altering the Bill as to allow either parent to apply for exemption was very strong, both in the Standing Committee and in the House of Commons itself, and the Government were of opinion that the decision of the Committee reflected the view of the majority of the House and that the Bill, as amended should stand. Lord Balfour had tried to draw an analogy between the English and Scottish Bills. He did not know exactly why there should be two Bills, but he assumed that this was necessitated by the fact that there already existed some difference in the procedure on each side of the border. At all events he was only concerned with the English Bill. He was not conversant with the practice of vaccination in Scotland, but he presumed that the procedure there was in some points different from the procedure in England. He would remind their Lordships that the English Bill had been through the House of Commons and that objection was taken in their Lordships' House to the Scottish Bill on Second Reading, owing to its having been introduced at a late period of the session, and not having been through the House of Commons. He did not know what might be done in another place with regard to assimilating the two Bills. The Government had considered the Amendment very carefully, and they thought the Bill, as amended, and which they believed to be the overwhelming opinion of the House of Commons should now stand.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthought the noble Lord who had just sat down had really made out his noble

289
friend's case. He had stated that the view of the Government itself was that the obligation should remain on the father as it was imposed by the Vaccination Act, and as, no doubt, it ought properly to remain. The Government held that view so strongly that they actually brought in the Scottish Bill in their Lordships' House precisely in that form, although they had been beaten in the matter in the Standing Committee of the House of Commons. He thought it was perfectly obvious that they ought to adhere to the law as it at present stood and that the father ought to be the person to obtain the statutory declaration. He had heard it urged as a grievance that under the present law the father had to lose a day's work for the purpose of attending the petty sessions, where alone he could obtain the certificate of exemption. That was possibly an objection with some force in it, but anyone could make a statutory declaration before the persons qualified to receive it at almost any hour of the day or night. Only the other day a labouring man came to him about his dinner hour, and of course he willingly received his statutory declaration. Any magistrate would do the same, so that there could be no difficulty about the matter so far as the father was concerned, and he hoped their Lordships would retain the obligation on the father.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): I am bound to say, in spite of the manner with which the noble Lord introduced the Amendment, that I cannot myself regard it otherwise than as a small
matter. My noble friend behind me has stated what has occurred in the House of Commons, and there is no doubt there is a very strong feeling that, as a simple matter of convenience, it is an advisable thing to allow the mother, who must be assumed for this purpose to be acting for the father, to make this statutory declaration. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite are afraid that domestic jars might arise if one parent held one view and the other another. I remember many years ago when I was a candidate for Parliament that a person who was canvassing on one side or the other visited a house and asked a little girl: "What does your father do?" The reply was: "What mother tells him." "Certainly, if a father was in such a position and allowed the predominant partner to make the statutory declaration even although he was in favour of vaccination, I feel he would only have himself to thank. I cannot feel that this is an important matter. The principle involved—that the person who is liable should be the only person to make the statutory declaration—sounds very reasonable, but, when you come to examine it, I confess I do not see any particular reason why it should not be made the subject of an exception if that exception is for the public convenience. Under those circumstances and holding the view we do, I am afraid we must resist the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out should stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:—
Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Allendale, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Blyth, L.

[Teller.]

Crewe, E. (L. President.)

Colebrooke, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Coleridge, L.

Haversham, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Carrington, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Pirrie, L.

Craven, E.

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

Sandhurst, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Tweedmouth, L.

Erersley, L.

Weardale, L.

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Fitzmaurice, L.

Glantawe, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Salisbury, M.

Cawdor, E.

Clarendon, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Camperdown, E.

Donoaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbury.)

Lansdowne, M.

Cathcart, E.

Mount-Edgeumbe, E.

Hood, V.

De Mauley, L.

Onslow, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Dunboyne, L.

Plymouth, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Powis, E.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Lawrence, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.

Ludlow, L.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Balfour, L.

Sanderson, L.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Burton, L.

Waleran, L.

Falkland, V.

Clinton, L.

Proposed word there inserted.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that the Bill provided that a parent or other person might make a statutory declaration, and that then he should be free from liability to fine or punishment. The question was, what was to be done with that declaration after it was made. There was nothing in the Bill to say what was to be done with it. He did not know whether there was anything in the Vaccination Act. It was just possible there might be. He observed, however, that in the Scottish Bill the Government had made most careful provision for what was to be done with the statutory declaration. In the English Bill they had made none, though, of course, it might be that there was something in the English Vaccination Act which dealt with the point. If there was not, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, which would make certain provisions as to how the declaration was to be kept and copies furnished, and so on.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 15, after the word 'district' to insert the words, 'Every vaccination officer to whom any statutory declaration shall be delivered under this Act, shall enter a minute of such declaration in a book to be kept by him for that purpose, and shall at all reasonable times allow searches to be made in such book, and upon demand give a copy under his hand of any entry therein on payment of a fee of sixpence for each search, and threepence for each copy, and shall be entitled in respect of each such entry to receive from the guardians the same sum as would be payable to him in respect of the registration of the successful vaccination of the child to whom such entry relates.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD ALLENDALEthought he could satisfy the noble Lord on the point. They did not propose to interfere with the Act of 1867 with regard to the question. Clause 24 of the Act provided that a register should be kept; and that upon demand copies of entries should be given on payment of 6d, for each search and 3d. for each copy. The
292
Registrar, under the Act, received 1d. in respect of every child and another fee of 3d. in respect of each certificate. The present Bill did not propose to interfere with that. It was hardly necessary for him to say that the vaccination officer was not the person who performed the operation of vaccination. His duties were to act as a sort of registrar of vaccination for the district for which he-was appointed, to see that all the children in his district were accounted for, to look up defaulters, and so on. He was required to keep a report book and register in which were entered particulars with regard to every child coming within his cognisance. The form of vaccination register was prescribed by the Local Government Board, and that would be slightly altered after the Bill was passed. It contained an entry of the date of the certificate of exemption under Section 2 of the Vaccination Act of 1898, and when the Bill was passed, the column would be altered to make it refer to a Statutory Declaration. It would be seen therefore that there would be a register of declarations, and there did not appear to be any sufficient reason to require a special book to be kept for that purpose. He thought the column in the present register would be sufficient, nor did there seem to be any need for provision to be made for searching, as that was already provided for under the Act of 1898. The Amendment seemed to be proposed in the interests of the vaccination officers who feared that the Bill might diminish their incomes, but it might be presumed that the law would relieve them of some amount of their work in connection with defaulters. It was not anticipated, as he pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill, that the number of persons who would obtain exemption on account of conscientious objections would be materially increased. That was one of the objections raised when the Act of 1898 was passed, and it had not proved to be the case. The number of applicants for exemption in proportion to the number of parents had: remained steady, varying

293
from 5 to 4·8 per cent. The vaccination officers were paid by fees, but he would remind Lord Camperdown that, if their remuneration was considered inadequate, the fees might be increased either by the guardians with the concurrence of the Local Government Board or by the Board itself.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that there was no doubt a register under the Act of 1867, but would that necessarily involve entries under this Bill, and would it be certain that there would be an obligation to let anyone have an examination of the register? Of course, it was a technical point of drafting, and, if the representatives of the Local Government Board told them that the thing would be done under any circumstances, then of course the Amendment would be superfluous, but they wanted to be quite sure that the statistics would be kept and would be available to any honest inquirer on payment of a fee.
LORD ALLENDALEsaid he could assure the noble Lord that it was so. The vaccination officers would be bound to keep a record, and it would be available to any reasonable inquirer.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that might be so, but as far as he could hear the noble Lord had said that in the Act of 1867 it was provided that a record should be kept of vaccinations. This Bill dealt with the question of statutory declarations. If it was necessary that there should be a statutory obligation with regard to vaccinations, why was it not necessary here? Of course, if the noble Lord said he was perfectly certain it was not necessary to have anything of the kind, it might be so, but, after all, they were dealing quite differently with this Bill from the manner in which they dealt with the Act of 1867.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I understand that the obligation which at present exists to place in a column of the register notice of all persons who have obtained certificates of exemption, in the manner now provided by law, will automatically be extended to those who obtain them by statutory declaration. I will, however, inquire, and if there is any doubt, my hon. friend will doubtless clear it up on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, reported.

VACCINATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order); and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
RELEASED PERSONS (POOR LAW RELIEF) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY— RISK OF FIRE.
LORD GLANTAWEsaid he desired to ask the Questions which stood on the paper in the name of Lord Weardale, viz.: "Whether His Majesty's Government were aware of the grave fire and other risks to which the National Portrait Gallery was exposed by reason of the close proximity of the canteen and prison belonging to St. George's Barracks, whether they would take steps, as in the case of the National Gallery, to isolate the National Portrait Gallery by the transference of those buildings to some other position in the area occupied by the barracks; and whether His Majesty's Government would in the event of a decision to remove the barracks to some other locality, have due regard in the allocation of the vacant space to the claims of the National Portrait Gallery, and the urgent necessity for some increase in the accommodation provided for the National Collection of Portraits?"
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): In reply to the Question which has been addressed to me, I should like to inform the noble Lord that we are not prepared to admit that the proximity of St. George's Barracks to the National Portrait Gallery does involve any greater danger of fire or similar risks than the proximity of other buildings which are also in the neighbourhood. I have gone

295
into the matter very carefully, because I sympathise with the object Lord Weardale has in view. The "Garrick" public-house is nearer to the Gallery than the canteen referred to by my noble friend. However this may be, my noble friend will be glad to hear that, as St. George's Barracks are entirely inadequate and unsuitable for their present purpose as the Central Recruiting Depot in London, another site has been selected in Old Scotland Yard with a view to the provision of new buildings which are to be erected thereon by His Majesty's Office of Works. I should like to inform my noble friend that the recruiting authorities at the War Office are willing on these conditions to vacate St. George's Barracks. We do not wish to raise any difficulty in the way of abandoning St. George's Barracks, but before we do so we must be put in a position of being provided with suitable accommodation elsewhere and in the neighbourhood. I would remind my noble friend that he must direct his further artillery at His Majesty's Office of Works, with a view to getting them to grant the additional accommodation which is demanded by the National Portrait Gallery Trustees. I should like to inform my noble friend that I entirely agree with him, and I hope His Majesty Office of Works will be able to agree.
LORD WEAEDALE: I thank my noble friend for the answer he has given on behalf of the War Office, but I desire to point out that the canteen actually abuts the wall of the National Portrait Gallery, and that so late as July 10th last, a fire broke out in the chimney of the canteen, and there was great danger of fire to the National Portrait Gallery itself. There was a large accumulation of debris entered the Gallery. Therefore, it is a matter of urgency and should be dealt with at once. I am well aware that other branches of my inquiry refer to another Department of State, and I would ask the representative of the Board of Works whether he can give us any light whatever with regard to giving further accommodation for the extension of the National Portrait Gallery. I would point out that the erection of the National Portrait Gallery was due to the munificence of a private individual and that all the nation has
296
furnished is a site, and in my judgment a very inadequate grant year after year. Nevertheless a very fine collection of National portraits has been gradually acquired, and if it was unfortunately damaged, it could never be replaced. There seems to be some hope, according to the statements of the Under-Secretary for War, that the Board of Works will at all events allocate to the National Portrait Gallery some portion of the site for the future extension of the Gallery.
LORD ALLENDALE: I have been asked by Mr. Harcourt to answer any questions raised on this matter. Fire and other risks have been very present to the First Commissioner's mind for some time, and he is considering a scheme-in conjunction with the War Office and other Departments whereby some of the military buildings may be provided for elsewhere, in consequence of which risk would be diminished and accommodation secured for the future extension of both galleries. I understand that negotiations are proceeding, and it is hoped the scheme may be settled within the course of a few months. I cannot say any more than that. With regard to the canteen to which Lord Weardale has referred, I would remind him it is in a remote corner of the building, and although the prison adjoins the National Portrait Gallery, I believe there are no windows looking into the National Portrait Gallery. The risk in case of fire is not quite so great as it might seem. I can only say that negotiations are proceeding, and it is hoped some arrangements will be made.
LORD WEARDALE: With regard to the prison to which my noble friend has referred, and its proximity to the National Portrait Gallery, I would point out that an unfortunate incident occurred; two years ago. A prisoner escaped and made his way into the National Portrait Gallery, and, by its proximity, was able to get out by the front door and escape altogether. Consequently, there are-other risks besides those of fire.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I hope this new building in Scotland Yard will be worthy of the Army. I know that the provision of proper recruiting stations has a most excellent effect in other parts of the country, and I hope the same example will be followed in the

297
case of the new London depot. I think it would be of great interest if the Under-Secretary for War could arrange for a plan of the new buildings to be left in the Library in order that we might see it.
THE Earl of PORTSMOUTH: I will do what I can.
House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock,