Sitting of 12 August 1907

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

RIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Oxford and District Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Glasgow Corporation Bill [Lords] As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Colne Valley Water Bill [Lords] (by Order). As amended, considered: Amendments made. Bill to be read the third time.
Kilmarnock Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.

RIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Post Office Sites Bill, with an Amendment.
  Probation of Offenders (No. 2) Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to—Aberdeen Corporation Electricity Bill [Lords].
  National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to the Assessment of Damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts," [Fatal Accidents (Damages) Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to Amend the Law with respect to Vaccination in Scotland by authorising a statutory declaration of conscientious objection." [Vaccination (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1906." [Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill [Lords].
  That they request that this House will be pleased to communicate to their Lordships a copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by this House on the Merchant Shipping (Tonnage Deduction for Propelling Power) Bill; together with the Proceedings of the Committee and Minutes of Evidence.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING ACTS.
  Petition from Carlisle, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRAMWAY ORDERS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Board of Trade of their proceedings under the Tramways Act, 1870, during the Session of 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1894–1906 (VESSELS DETAINED).
  Copy presented, of Return of all ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its officers, during the period from 1st July, 1906, to 30th June, 1907, to be provisionally detained as unsafe, together with Summaries, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 7th August, 1907, declares that John Crabtree, Steam Hammer Driver, Royal Gun Factory, War Office, was
  774
  appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 6th August, 1907, granting to James Trotman Dean, Chief Clerk, Engineer-in-Chief's Department, Post Office, a retiring allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Account presented, of Receipts and Expenditure of the Paymaster-General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in respect of the Funds of suitors of the Court in the year ended 28th February, 1907, and of Account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 297.]
  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE (INDIAN SECTION).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the Imperial Institute [Indian Section] for the year 1906–7 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, ETC., 1906–7.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th July; Dr. Macnamara]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 298.]
  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AGRICULTURE, ETC.) (SCOTLAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th May; Mr. Munro Ferguson]; to lie upon the Table.
  CASUALTIES TO SHIPS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 29th April; Mr. Bellairs]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 299.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3891 to 3896 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRANSVAAL.
  Copy presented, of the Transvaal Loan Act, 1907, with Papers respecting the Finances of the Colony [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894 (ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 1 (7) OF THE ACT.)
  Return ordered, "showing, according to the accounts for the twelve months preceding the 31st day of March, 1907, furnished to the Local Government Board under Section 1 (7) of the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894—(1) The amounts paid during the year out of the Equalisation Fund under the Act to the Corporation of the City of London and each of the Councils of the Metropolitan Boroughs to whom payments out of that fund were made; (2) The amount of the expenses incurred during the year by each of these authorities (a) under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (including expenses of scavenging streets); (b) in respect of lighting; and (c) in respect of streets (other than the expenses of scavenging); and (3) The amount expended during the year by each such authority out of the sums received by them under the Act (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 375, of Session 1906)."—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy ordered, of "Statement of the amount expended by Boards of Guardians for Poor Relief during the half-year ended Lady Day, 1907; and similar statement for the half-year ended Michaelmas, 1907 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 315, of Session 1906)."—(Dr. Macnamara.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Granting of Probate by Inland Revenue Authorities.
  Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that grants of probate and administration can be taken out by Inland Revenue officers when the gross value of the estate does not exceed £300, on deposit with him of 15s. for fees of Court and expenses; whether he is aware that the Inland Revenue officer at Ballyshannon, on application being made
  776
  to him by Patrick Brown, who had previously obtained an order of the Court enabling him to obtain the grants of administration to Cornelius Clarke, whose assets for the purpose of administration were only valued at £5, referred the case to the district registrar of Londonderry, who replied that he could not deal with it through him, as the case was one for legal decision and not contemplated by The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881, or The Finance Act, 1894; whether, having regard to the fact that Brown is a judgment creditor in a sum of upwards of £13 and the guardian of the estate, and that no question presenting any real difficulty arises, the grant in this case may be taken out by the Inland Revenue officer, and the costs and expenses incidental to its extraction through the district registry office thus saved; and whether some steps will be taken to secure that in such small cases the Inland Revenue, if it acts at all, should extract grants of probate and administration, and not take all the easy grants and leave grants presenting any questions of difficulty, however slight, to solicitors.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that the functions of the Inland Revenue officer under Section 33 of The Revenue Act, 1881, are merely those of an agent acting as a channel of communication between the applicant for a grant and the officers of the Probate Court, and it is necessary that he should; refer to those officers in all cases where there is any complication in the circumstances of the application. That is what happened in the case referred to, and the action taken by the officer was correct and necessary. Similarly the district registrar acted strictly in accordance with a rule of Court which provides that "applications for grants of probate or administration in cases which have already been before the Court (on motion or otherwise) must be made through a solicitor." As regards the last part of the Question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 2nd ultimo to ray hon. friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow.†

  The Suez Canal Directors.
  MR. BRIGG: To ask the Secretary of State
  † See (4) Debates, clxxvii., 530.

  777
  for Foreign Affairs at what place and how often do the directors of the Suez Canal hold their meetings; by whom is the appointment made of the seven British directors who represent shipping; and for what term are they appointed.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The directors of the Suez Canal Company meet, as a rule, at the offices of the company in Paris on the first Monday of every month, but meetings can at any time be summoned by the president should the business of the company require it. In accordance with the agreement come to in 1883, seven of the directors are chosen from among British shipowners and merchants and form a committee, who have an office in London and select a new member as a vacancy occurs, whose appointment is submitted to the council and ratified, as in the case of all other directors, by the general body of shareholders. The directors are appointed for eight years, but may be re-elected at the expiration of this period.

  Claim against United States Government for Damage to Steamer "Eastry."
  MR. F. E. SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a claim for damages sustained by the British steamship "Eastry," belonging to Messrs. Sivewright, Bacon, and Company, in a collision at Manila in June, 1901, with certain coal hulks belonging to the Government of the United States of America, has been recommended for payment in messages from the President of "the United States to the Senate and House of Representatives, dated 19th January, 1903, 20th January, 1904, and 8th January, 1906, respectively; whether the said claim remains unpaid; and whether His Majesty's Embassy at Washington have been instructed to take any, and what, steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The Answer to the first and second parts of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. The claim is included amongst a number of claims which have been submitted to the United States Government in accordance with proposals made for a settlement of all claims outstanding between them and His Majesty's Government.

  Exclusion of Children from Hawkwell School, Essex.
  MR. WHITEHEAD (Essex, S. E.): To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the circumstances under which twelve children in Standards IV. to VI., residing in the parish of Hawkwell, Essex, have been excluded from Hawkwell school, and thereby lost three months' instruction; whether he is aware that the parents of such children refuse to send them to the school in the adjoining parish on the alleged ground that such school is in an insanitary condition and their children would be obliged to walk about four miles extra per day; whether the scheme of reorganisation of the schools under which these children are excluded has received his sanction, and is in all respects regular; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) My attention has been called to the exclusion of certain children from the Hawkwell parish school with a view to the reorganisation of that school as one for younger children only. I am also aware that certain parents have objected to send their children so excluded to the Hockley council school on the ground of distance and of the insanitary condition of the school. In consequence of these representations the Board wrote to the local education authority asking for further information, and intimating that in any case the change in the organisation should not be carried out until the Hockley school had been made sanitary. In reply the local education authority have stated that they see no reason for changing their decision. Under these circumstances I propose to inform the local education authority that the Board are unable to regard the exclusion of these children as reasonable under Article 53 of the Code, and to point out that the grant to the school is liable to forfeiture in consequence.

  Upkeep of Roads in Scotland—Grants from Motor Car Licence Fees.
  MR. AINSWORTH: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has given consideration to the Report of the Motor Car Commission; whether in view of the largely increased cost of the upkeep of roads in consequence of

  779
  motor car traffic, which is specially felt in the Highland and other sparsely populated counties with extensive road mileage, he will consider the necessity of giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee, especially as to a more equitable distribution of the revenue derived from motor-car licences, and a contribution from the Treasury towards the maintenance of main roads in such counties; and whether he will communicate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to this grievance being dealt with next session.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I fully appreciate the importance of the question raised by my hon. friend. The matter is in view of the Government, and, so far as the interests of Scotland are exceptional, I shall endeavour to see that they are specially considered.

  Army Expenditure—Excess over Estimate.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that certain War Estimates have been exceeded by supplemental expenditure to the amount of £690,000, arrangements will be made to prevent such an excess of expenditure over military Estimates in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The hon. Member apparently refers to the Estimates of 1905–6, but he is under a misapprehension in believing that they were exceeded. There is, on the contrary, a considerable surplus which has been surrendered to the Exchequer. The figure mentioned in the Question represents the surplus anticipated in March, 1906. The actual surplus proved to be greater.

  Transvaal and Orange River Colonies Claim for Customs Rebates.
  MR. R. D. HOLT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any portion of the claims for Customs rebates against the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, referred to in the 6th paragraph of the Third Report of the Committee of Public Accounts for the year 1906, and in paragraph 13 of the Second Report of the same Committee for this year, has been admitted by the Governments of the Colonies in question.
  780
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The hon. Member will observe, on reference to the second passage which he mentions, that on further consideration it was decided by the Treasury that it was not open to His Majesty's Government to press the specific claims in question. A general settlement of claims as between the War Office and the new Colonies has been effected, and it was contended on behalf of the Colonies that the terms of this settlement must be held to cover all such claims.

  South African Compensation Claim—Case of Mr. Keeve.
  MR. COCHRANE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Mr. Keeve, of Mooidam Farm, District Kroonstad, served in a corps of Boer scouts in aid of the British forces in South Africa; whether he is aware that his sheep were commandeered and his plantation and homestead destroyed; and whether he has received any compensation.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has no information as to the facts of the case mentioned by the hon. Member, but, while I am not able to hold out any hope of reopening the question of compensation claims, inquiry will be made if desired for the information of the hon. Member.

  Re-organisation of Audit Office Staff.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the abolition of the post of chief clerk in the Audit Office, and the granting of £100 per annum additional to each of three principal clerks for performing part of the duties of chief clerk when the then occupant of the post retired on pension, were decided on as part of the reorganisation scheme which came into force on the 1st of November, 1905; and whether he will give the date from which £50 of the private secretary's non-pensionable private allowance of £150 per annum was merged in the annual salary of the private secretary for pensionable purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The grant of £100 to the principal clerk at the headquarters of the Exchequer and Audit Department, and the alteration of the emoluments of the private secretary,

  781
  both took effect from the 1st October, 1906, the date of retirement of the chief clerk.

  Promotion in the Customs Service.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that in making promotions to the more highly paid collectorships and other positions in the Customs Department, the Board of Customs has given prior consideration to the claims of certain persons and has ignored the seniority and efficiency claims of collectors who are Irishmen, he will give instructions that in future promotions the seniority and efficiency claims of all collectors should be considered irrespective of nationality.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) There is no foundation for the statement in the Question.

  Irish Land Purchase Act Rules.
  Mr. FETHEHSTONHAUGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has consulted the Irish Law Officers or other legal authorities as to the alleged difficulty of drafting the rules required by Section 2 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act to enable purchasers to pay portion of their purchase annuities in Guaranteed Land Stock.
  (Answered by Mr. Runcimcm.) No, Sir.
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state when rules, if any, were made enabling purchasers under the Purchase of Land Act, 1891, to redeem their annuities by Guaranteed Land Stock; have such rules been published or made known to the purchasers; and where and how can a copy of them be obtained.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) As I explained in my Answer to the hon. Member for Carlow on the 9th ultimo, to which the hon. member has already been referred, no rule is required to enable the redemption of an annuity to be made in stock.

  Royal Marines—Rations for Married Men.
  Mr. MILDMAY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, with regard to the issue of
  782
  rations (meat and bread) to the men of the Royal Marines quartered ashore, he will consider the possibility of reverting to the old conditions under which married men had the option of drawing their rations for a consideration or of catering for themselves.
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) It would not be in the interests of the men of the Royal Marines to reintroduce the old system under which a man who did not draw his ration in kind received no money allowance in lieu. At present, if a man is permitted not to draw his bread and beef ration in kind, he is allowed 6d. a day in lieu.

  Post Office—Salary of Chief Medical Officer.
  MR. HUNT: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Select Committee on Post Office Wages, paragraphs 43 to 47; whether the officer of the Post Office thus mentioned has, since giving his evidence before the Select Committee, been given a considerable increase to his salary; whether he will state the reasons leading to the additional emoluments being paid to this official after tendering such evidence; and, in view of the Report, what steps are to be taken to ensure efficient service in the Post Office Medical Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have read the paragraphs referred to. As the hon. Member was informed in reply to a Question asked in this House on 29th April last, the increase in the salary of the chief medical officer was authorised, before he gave evidence before the Committee, on the ground that the salary was not considered to afford adequate renumeration for the duties of the post. The recommendations of the Select Committee will receive the most careful consideration.

  Coal Borings on Common Land at Ashdown Forest.
  MR. COWAN: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that Lord De la Warr has lately made experimental borings in the open common land of Ashdown Forest with the view of finding and working coal and

  783
  iron; and whether, seeing that Ashdown Forest is a regulated common under a Provisional Order and award by the Board of Agriculture made under the Commons Act, 1876, under these circumstances, and having regard to the rights of the commoners, he will say what steps the Board propose to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We have no official information on this matter and the Board have no power to intervene. The Provisional Order and award vest the management and control of Ashdown Forest in a body of thirteen conservators, one being the lord of the manor or his representative, and the remainder being elected by the commoners. It rests with the conservators to take any steps that are necessary to protect the interests of the commoners.

  Staffing of Penarth School.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the President of the Board of Education if the recommendations of his Majesty's inspector, subsequently approved by the Board, as to the staffing of Penarth School have been carried into effect; and if not, what steps are being taken by the Board to secure that their recommendation shall be fulfilled.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) His Majesty's inspector's recommendations made in February, 1906, in regard to the staffing of this school were not adopted by the local education authority, who suggested an alternative scheme of staffing which the Board were able to approve in July, 1906. Since that date the Board have received no complaints that the staff is in any way unsatisfactory.

  Pay of Staff of Landaff Non-Provided School.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the President of the Board of Education if the teachers in the Landaff non-provided school receive salaries on the same scale as the teachers in the Glamorganshire council schools; and whether, having regard to the difficulty which appears to have been experienced in obtaining a suitable staff for the school in question, the Board will now ensure that the staff is suitably paid.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have no information on the first point raised
  784
  in the noble Lord's Question, and, in regard to the second part of the Question, I am unaware that there has been any such difficulty as he refers to.

  Tramway Brakes.
  MR. DALZIEL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent serious tramway accidents; and whether he will consider the advisability of referring the question of brake power to the Committee now sitting to inquire into railway brakes.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I must refer my hon. friend to the reply I gave to a Question on the same subject which the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth asked on Thursday last.†

  The Edalji Case—Sir A. Conan Doyle's Memorandum.
  Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the statements and materials furnished by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in connection with the Edalji case, which were submitted to the Attorney-General, have now been considered by the Attorney-General; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The statements and materials referred to were submitted by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as disclosing a case against a person whom he suspected of having been concerned in the cattle-maiming outrages, of one of which Mr. Edalji was convicted, and also of having been the author of certain anonymous letters which have been attributed to Mr. Edalji. The Attorney-General and Sir Charles Mathews have advised that these statements and materials disclose no case even of a prima facie character against the individual indicated by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and that no action can be taken thereon.

  Pauper Lunatics in London.
  MR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of men and women, giving the number of each sex, who are detained in the London workhouses as harmless lunatics on account of senile decay or
  † See (4) Debates, clxxx., 325–6.

  785
  imbecility; if he can state whether any children, and, if any, how many, are detained in the London workhouses because of imbecility or idiocy; whether he is aware that no child under five years of age can be admitted into one of the imbecile asylums of the Metropolitan Asylums Board; and whether he will consider the desirability of altering this regulation.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The number of the insane in the London workhouses on 1st January last was 322, of whom 159 were men, 149 women, and 14 children. The nature of the lunacy from which these persons were suffering is not specified in the Returns. The rule that children under five years of age should not be admitted into the institutions of the Metropolitan Asylums Board for imbecile children was made because it was felt that a trustworthy judgment cannot be formed as to the intellectual condition of very young children. The Local Government Board have, however, intimated to the managers that they would favour arrangements for the reception of children of the kind in question in such a way that they might be carefully observed by an expert before being finally drafted into an asylum.

  Mountjoy Prison Staff.
  Mr. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that since the 2nd July the system of performing the night duty in Mountjoy Prison has been changed, and one warder is now detailed to discharge the same duty that formerly was always carried out by two warders; whether it has been reported to the Government that there is now an extra warder on the staff since the introduction of this new method and the curtailing of a warder off the night staff; whether in future the warder who is detailed to perform night duty will be allowed off the whole day after performing this nine hours' duty, upon which he is not relieved to partake of any refreshments; and whether, in view of the number of warders who are now exempt from night duty, he will arange that they shall take their turn of night work, as they can be granted fourteen days' leave of absence at a time.
  786
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. Such changes are to the advantage of the warders as lessening the amount of night duty. No extra warder has become available for duty since the change was made. Warders detailed for night duty are allowed off duty from 2 p.m. before taking up night duty, and are also off duty on the following day until 2 p.m. It is not proposed to make any change in this practice. Warders on the night duty have facilities for taking light refreshments. Certain officers holding special positions as clerks, storekeepers, and tradesmen are exempted from night duty, and it would not be desirable to alter this practice. All warders may be granted fourteen days' leave of absence.

  Irish Schools Taken into Connection.
  MR. JOHN MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain from the Commissioners of National Education the number of schools taken into connection since 1903; how many of these schools have or are expected to have an average attendance of between 10 and 20, between 20 and 30, between 30 and 50; and how many above 50.
  (Answered by Mr Birrell.) Since 1st. January, 1903, the Commissioners of National Education have taken into connection 83 new schools, classified as follows:—

  Average Attendance.

  Number of Schools.

  —

  —

  10 and under 20

  27

  20 and under 30

  21

  30 and under 50

  10

  50 and upwards

  25

  Purchase of Holdings by Tenants on Lawlor Estate.
  MR. JOHN MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners can take any steps to enable the tenants on the Lawlor estate, near Muckross, Killarney, to purchase their holdings, as the remainder of the estate has already been sold.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) No proceedings for the sale of this estate are pending before the Estates Commissioners

  787
  and they are not aware that any negotiations for purchase are in progress. The case, therefore, does not appear to be one in which they can take any action.

  Evicted Tenants—Claim of Mrs. M. D. Herlihy.
  MR. JOHN MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have made inquiries into the claim of Mrs. Mary D. Herlihy, of Glandagh, Killeentierna, Farranfore, county Kerry, as an evicted tenant; and what has been the result of the same.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Mrs. Herlihy's application was received on 7th June last, that is to say, after the special staff of inspectors appointed to inquire into evicted tenants' applications had ceased work. The Estates Commissioners have, therefore, bad no inquiries made into the case, and have not yet decided whether they will take any action upon the application.

  Civil Rights of Irish School Teachers— Decision of Commissioners.
  MR. JOHN MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet ascertained if the Commissioners of National Education were unanimous in their decision to refuse to change the rules dealing with the civil rights of teachers in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, in their opinion, it is undesirable, in the interests of the public service, to give information such as is asked for in the Question.

  Promotion of Irish School Teachers— Inspectors Reports.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the numbers who, for the triennial period ending 31st March last, are to be disallowed promotion to second-of-first grade and first-of-first respectively through the adverse Report of a new inspector on his first visit to a school, though the two preceding Reports were up to the required standard of proficiency; and if the National Board take into account the representations made, on different occasions during the past two years, by the central executive
  788
  committee of the National Teachers Organisation, and protesting against teachers being so deprived of promotion by investigating all cases of this sort in which the managers requested a re-inspection and were refused.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the promotions of teachers who may be eligible by service are at present being made. It would be impossible, at the present stage of the work, to furnish the information asked for in the Question, but if the Commissioners should be supplied with particulars of any case involved in the terms of this Question the matter will be fully considered. No teacher is refused promotion without a careful investigation of all the circumstances of the case.

  Persons Disfranchised for Non-Payment of Rates.
  MR. MULDOON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will direct the Poor Law officials in attendance at the forthcoming revision of the lists of parliamentary and local government electors to keep, according to each constituency or parliamentary division, a record of the number of persons disfranchised by reason of the non-payment of the poor rate within the statutable period, and of the receipt of union relief within the qualifying period.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It has already been decided to make arrangements with the object of securing that the record suggested in the Question shall be kept at the approaching revision.

  Provision of Additional Accommodation for School at Ballyforan.
  MR. JOHN MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have taken any steps to ensure the immediate provision of the additional accommodation recommended by the head inspector for the school at Ballyforan, county Roscommon, of which Mr. P. J. Geoghegan is teacher.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The manager of this school applied to the Commissioners for a grant towards the erection of a new school-house for the

  789
  accommodation of the girls and infants attending the present mixed school. Owing, however, to the smallness of the attendance at the present school the formation of a separate school as proposed would not be admissible under the rules now in force. The question of providing suitable accommodation for the pupils in attendance, having regard to all the circumstances, is under consideration by the Commissioners.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Greenwich Generating Station.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can now state the result of the negotiations between the Admiralty and the London County Council with reference to the generating station at Greenwich, having regard to the fact that the Committee appointed to inquire into the matter reported on 17th December last.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,): I cannot add anything to the Answer given to the hon. Gentleman last Monday. † I understand the Council has now risen, and the question cannot come before them again till their next meeting at the beginning of October.

  Naval Gun Sights.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the position occupied by the Channel Fleet in reference to other fleets in the recent gun-layers' test was wholly or partly due to the deflection dials of the gun-sights of the heavy armaments being incorrectly marked in the case of new ships, the bulk of which have been placed in the Channel Fleet.
  MR. LAMBERT: The reply is in the negative. The "King Edward VII.," with the same deflection dials used in 1906, was second ship in the Navy in the previous year in the Heavy Gun-Layers' Test.
  † See (4) Debates, clxxix, 1530.

  Naval Crimean Veterans.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the small expense involved, the Board will consider the advisability of placing the surviving Crimean veterans of the Navy on at least as good a footing as those of the Army; and, if this cannot be done from the charitable funds of Greenwich Hospital, whether it can be done by Order in Council.
  MR. LAMBERT: It is not proposed to differentiate between men with war service in the Crimea, and others with equally meritorious service elsewhere. On the whole the Navy pension system is substantially more favourable to the men than the system in force in the Army.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the War Office has differentiated, and that the effect has been to put the men on an unequal footing? I can give him specific instances.
  MR. LAMBERT: Any instances which the hon. Gentleman can give me I shall be glad to have considered.

  Gun Practice in the Moray Firth.
  Mr. SUTHERLAND: On behalf of the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if complaints have reached the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the loss incurred by salmon-fishery lessees along the shores of the Moray Firth through movement of the salmon to deeper waters owing to big gun practice of the fleet; and whether orders can be given that this gun practice should take place in the Moray Firth only after the close of the salmon-netting season or, alternately, that it should take place in the open sea.
  MR. LAMBERT: The Admiralty are giving careful attention to representations made to them, and the Commanders in Chief of the Fleets which visit Scottish waters will be requested to bear them in mind in future years.

  Admiralty Dredgers in Egypt.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is

  791
  aware that for the two years ending June, 1907, two Admiralty dredgers were lent to the Egyptian Government without any payment being exacted for their services; that Lord Cromer states in his annual Report that they rendered very effective assistance in deepening the channel at the port of Alexandria; and whether he can explain the circumstances which induced the Treasury to sanction the loan of these dredgers free of charge for so long a period to a rich port which, in 1906, is stated by the Foreign Office Report on the trade of Alexandria to have dealt with entrances and clearances amounting to 7,800,000 tons of shipping.
  MR. LAMBERT: It was considered by the late and the present Boards of Admiralty that as the improvement of the port would largely benefit the mercantile marine, and to a certain extent the Navy, the loan of these two dredgers was justified. The whole cost of their maintenance was borne by the Egyptian Government.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: Could not the same thing be said of every port around the British coast? What induced the Treasury to sanction this?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Chinese Labour in the Transvaal.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Transvaal Government has introduced a Bill to prolong the restrictions of the Chinese Labour Ordinance after that Ordinance expires in March next; and, if so, what action His Majesty's Government intends to take.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The policy of the Transvaal Government, so far as I understand it, is to repatriate the Chinese labourers at the termination of their indentures, without permitting those indentures to be renewed. Under the Letters Patent the existing Labour Importation Ordinance lapses on 21st March, 1908. An interval will therefore arise during which some provision for the government of the Chinese who are awaiting their turn to go is indispensible to the order and security of the Colony
  792
  and, indeed, to the complete termination of the Chinese labour experiment. His Majesty's Government have always recognised that some measure of this kind would probably be necessary as part of the machinery of repatriation upon expiry of contract, and the Secretary of State explained the necessity in his place in Parliament in reply to a question on 17th June last. I have as yet no official information upon the provisions of the Bill which is said to have been introduced to that end, and in the absence of the full text it would be premature to express an opinion.
  Mr. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is anything in the law of the Transvaal which will make it impossible for the Kaffirs who take the place of the Chinamen to compete with skilled European labour?
  SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)asked whether the Transvaal Legislature would have to make a new Ordinance to carry on the contracts of the Chinese labourers after the expiration of the time fixed in March next for the completion of those contracts?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I fail to distinguish between the substance of the hon. Member's supplementary Question and that of the Question on the Paper.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the present Bill introduced into the Transvaal Legislature will cover the finishing contracts from the time of expiration in March next and also provide regulations or Chinese labour after March next?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Though I am not informed of the precise conditions of the measure, I presume it will provide for the government of those Chinese who are awaiting the expiry of their indentures. It is certainly not advisable that they should be turned loose.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask whether this Bill will contain regulations dealing with restrictions on Chinamen after March next, and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will take these restrictions under review and, if they

  793
  contain conditions of slavery, veto the Bill now before the Transvaal Legislature?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think it would be very inadvisable for me to express an opinion as to that hypothetical question.
  Mr. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question?
  Mr. CHUKCHILL: It is a question very largely of opinion as to the extent to which Kaffir labour will come into competition with skilled white labour, and whether that labour will compete to a greater or a less extent than the Chinese labour.
  MR. HAROLD COX: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to have a draft of the Bill in this country?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think it has yet passed the Legislative Assembly, and after that it has to go to the Legislative Council, and then come here.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Have the Government been consulted in this matter, as the Bill practically re-enacts the Ordinance which the Government said they would not enact?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage of me. I do not know what the effect of the Bill is. It is not the practice of self-governing Colonies to submit their Bills to the Home Government before passing them.

  Native Access to the Transvaal Law Courts.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the draft of a Bill, published in the Gazette of the Transvaal Government, which would deprive Natives of the Transvaal of the right of access to the Courts of law in certain cases, and render them dependent in such cases upon the arbitrary will of the Transvaal Ministry; and what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: At the same time may I ask the Under-Secretary, of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the proposed legislation in the Transvaal Legislature
  794
  which is intended to abolish access of Natives to the Law Courts in the case of certain decisions of the Governor in Council, and to establish the right to depose, remove, and intern chiefs and headmen, and to transfer tribes and individuals from one district to another upon such conditions as the Governor may determine; and whether these conditions are in keeping with the principles embodied in the Transvaal Constitution for the protection of Native rights as to reserves, habitation, and the paternal care of this Government.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Gravesend to the Answer to Questions on this subject on Thursday the 8th instant.† The Secretary of State does not think that any opinion as to the Bill can be usefully expressed till he is in possession of its detailed provisions and of the reasons for which it has been introduced.
  Mr. MYER: Is there any reason why all human beings in our Colonies should not be equal before the law?
  MR. CHURCHILL: That is rather an extensive programme to be dealt with by way of question and answer.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have now received from the Transvaal any I reply to their telegraphic inquiry as to the Bill 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 tribes can be transferred against their will from one district to another.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is still awaiting the answer to his inquiry.

  Transvaal Field Cornets.
  MR. FELL (Great Yarmouth): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received any information to the effect that the Government
  † See (4) Debates, clxxx., 315–6.
  of the Transvaal Colony proposes to reestablish the field cornets as part of the administrative machinery of that Colony; and, if so, will the field cornets hold the same positions that they held prior to the war.
  SIR GILBEET PARKER: I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Bill introduced in the Transvaal Legislature for the re-establishment of the field cornet system was laid in draft before this Government previous to its introduction; what will be the duties and responsibilities of the new organisation; and whether it is intended to have any military functions.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Bill in question was not laid in draft form before His Majesty's Government: it is one which is fully within the competence of the responsible Government of the Transvaal. The Secretary of State has no information as to the details of the Bill beyond what is contained in Press telegrams, not always conceived with the intention of representing the legislative projects of the Transvaal Government in the most favourable light.
  Mr. MOLTENO: Has not the field cornet system always prevailed in the South African Colonies since they were settled?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

  Panama Canal Labour.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the loss of life that occurred at the Isthmus of Panama during the construction of the works by the original French company among the labourers recruited from Jamaica and the other West Indian islands; and whether, under the circumstances, the Colonial Office will recommend that the greatest circumspection should be employed with regard to any contracts or attempts to recruit labourers from any of our Colonies for the new Panama Canal works.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has every reason to believe that the Governors of the various West Indian Colonies are acquainted with the past
  796
  history of the works on the Isthmus of Panama, and that they are alive to the exigencies of the present situation. A copy of the hon. Member's Question, and of my reply, will be forwarded to the Governors.

  British-Indians in the Transvaal.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to protect British-Indian subjects who are lawfully resident in the Transvaal Colony from the identical disabilities imposed upon them by the still unrepealed Law 3 of 1885 of the late Republic, against which protests were then urged.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is impossible to deal adequately with the matters raised by the hon. Member within the limits of an Answer to a Question; but I may observe, first, that Law 3 of 1885 of the late South African Republic was amended in important respects in 1886. Secondly, that the Supreme Court of the Transvaal has put upon a very important section of that law a construction more favourable to the British-Indian than that which the Courts of the late South African Republic gave to it, holding that the law did not compel Asiatics to trade in locations. Thirdly, that the Asiatic Law Amendment Act passed this year is regarded by Lord Selborne as securing a permanent and substantial improvement in the position of Asiatics settled in the Colony by definitely recognising their rights in respect of residence, and by allaying the dread entertained by the European community of a large increase in the Asiatic population, and thus leading to a more favourable attitude on the part of the European community. Full information upon all these matters will be found in the Papers laid before Parliament; but it should be understood that His Majesty's Government have no power to protect British-Indians in the Transvaal from the operation of a law in force in the Colony.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the published draft Immigration Restriction Bill of the Transvaal, which threatens to inflict additional disabilities and humiliations upon His Majesty's

  797
  Indian subjects; and whether he proposes to take any steps to protect them.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has seen the draft Bill referred to by the hon. Member. It will be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure, but no statement can be made as to the action of His Majesty's Government with respect to it pending its receipt in the form in which it is passed by the Transvaal Legislature, when its provisions will receive attentive consideration.
  SIR GILBEKT PARKER: Is it not the case that in some instances Bills are submitted by the self-governing Colonies to the Home Government before being discussed by the Colonial Legislature?
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is done sometimes as a matter of convenience. It all depends on the arrangement between His-Majesty's Government and the self-governing Colonies.

  Russia and Persia.
  Mr. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information which can properly be made public showing that the Persian Government has appealed to the Russian Government for assistance in consequence of internal disorders, or that one of the princes has raised an army against the Persian Government.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,; for Sir EDWARD GREY): No such information has reached His Majesty's Government.

  Sir Harry Maclean.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the present position and whereabouts of Sir Harry Maclean; and whether there is any immediate prospect of his release.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Sir Harry Maclean is believed to be somewhere in the vicinity of Al-Casar, but we have no information as to his exact whereabouts. His Majesty's Minister at Tangier is doing all he possibly can with the view of obtaining his release.
  MR. ASHLEY: Have the terms of the release been communicated to His Majesty's Government?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The hon Gentleman had better put down a Question.
  MR. ASHLEY: I have put down several Questions on this subject.

  British Commercial Attachés.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the commercial attaches have been withdrawn from Berlin and other Continental capitals; and, if so, does this action mean an abandonment of the policy of commercial representation at embassies abroad.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend would refer the hon. Member to the Board of Trade Journal, No. 544, of May 2nd last, on page 213 of which will be found a statement giving the information desired. The new arrangements therein detailed took effect on July 1st last.

  Small Holdings Bill Finance.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the charge on the Exchequer, arising out of the Small Holdings Bill in the year 1907–8, is to be £100,000 for the quarter ending 31st March, 1908; whether it is contemplated that the charge arising in future years will be, for the four quarters, £400,000 a year; and whether this annual charge will be deducted from the nucleus available for old-age pensions.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): The expenditure in connection with the Small Holdings Bill during the current financial year will be very small, as the Bill will not come into operation until the 1st January next. The sum of £100,000 is, as was stated by my right hon. friend in introducing the Bill, a contribution from Public Funds to the Small Holdings Account for the first year. Whether any, and if so what, further contribution will be required in future years is a question which can be considered when necessity arises.
  MR. CHAPLINasked if, for the whole year, other three-fourths would be added?
  Mr. ASQUITH: I would rather not commit myself to any predictions.
  MR. CHAPLIN: But it is in contemplation that it may be necessary?
  MR. ASQUITH: It may be necessary.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that during the passage of the Small Holdings Bill through Committee upstairs a clause was added such as that any loss arising out of action under the Bill may be charged against the National Exchequer instead of against the county council making the loss, that this clause was added by the Committee against the wishes of the Government, that in spite of the numerical strength of the agricultural interest on the Committee no attempt is being made in the House to restore the Bill on Report to its original condition; and whether, in view of the fact that no private Amendment to this clause can be reached under the scheme of closure by compartments, he will represent to the Board of Agriculture the advisability of putting down an official Amendment to prevent this application of public funds.
  MR. ASQUITH: The attitude of the Government in regard to this matter will be fully explained, should the occasion arise, by my right hon. friend in charge of the Bill.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: But the closure by compartments will prevent this being brought on.

  Motor Bus Speed.
  Mr. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to any apparatus for controlling the speed of motor omnibuses so as to prevent the possibility of their travelling beyond a fixed maximum; and, if so, whether he will cause experiments to be made with such apparatus with a view to its application to motor omnibuses within the Metropolitan area.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I understand that there is no such contrivance actually in use, but it is possible that mechanism which would effect the object proposed may be invented. In that event the Commissioner of Police will carefully consider the question of requiring such apparatus to be fitted to motor omnibuses in the Metropolis.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Will the Commissioner of Police make experiments with it?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid it was rather difficult to say whether it would be within his power to do so.

  London Police and Socialistic Meetings.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the action of the Metropolitan Police in picketing and taking the names of speakers at open-air Socialistic meetings and not at other open-air meetings; whether this action is taken on his authority or on the authority of the police authorities; and why such action is taken; and, if for no legitimate reason, will he cause this system of shadowing Socialists to be abandoned.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is no picketing by the police at any open-air meetings, Socialistic or other. Some police are placed on duty near all meetings, with instructions to keep the peace and regulate traffic. On occasions a record of names is kept, but such action is not confined to any one class of meetings.

  Manchester Building Bye-laws.
  MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Manchester Corporation have submitted to his Department new building bye-laws; whether he can state why they have not been confirmed; and is he aware that similar bye-laws have for some years been in force in Levensholme, a suburb of Manchester.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The corporation

  801
  submitted the draft of bye-laws as to new streets and buildings to the Local Government Board, who returned it on the 15th June last for consideration of some notes and suggested alterations. The Board have not at present heard further on the subject. The draft differs in some respects from the bye-laws in force at Levenshulme. Moreover, since those bye-laws were made various modifications and improvements have been made in the Board's Model Series upon which they were founded.

  Dust on Rural Roads.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that rural district councils desire to co-operate with county councils in the mitigation of the dust nuisance by spraying the roads with tar; whether the Local Government Board have decided that the rural district councils cannot incur expense in this direction; what are the grounds for this decision; and whether some modification of it is possible, in view of the fact that localities will be greatly benefited by this method of treating the roads.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the desire referred to. I presume that the roads to which the hon. Member alludes are main roads. These in rural districts are maintained by the county council, and the question is whether a rural district council can legally contribute towards the cost of spraying them with tar. They could do so if the operation could be brought within the terms of Section 3 of the Highways and Bridges Act, 1891, but I am advised that it cannot safely be held that this is the case.
  MR. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this during the recess?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes; that is one of the matters I hope to go into during the recess.

  Post Office Servants—Report of Select Committee.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General when it is proposed to put into force such of the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Post Office
  802
  Servants as have been accepted by his Department.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W., for Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): I am afraid I cannot say more at the present moment than that the recommendations of the Select Committee are receiving careful consideration.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Shall we have any pronouncement from the Postmaster-General before the end of the session?
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I hope my right hon. friend will be in his place to-morrow, and he will then be able to answer questions on this subject.

  Education Grant for New Schools.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when it is probable that the regulations governing the grant of £100,000 for new schools will be published.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): I cannot yet fix the exact date, but I hope these regulations will be issued in the course of a few days.

  Swansea Education Dispute.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can say whether the Swansea local education authority have refused to pay the full salaries of the teachers in the non-provided schools; and if so, on what grounds; what was the date of his interview with the managers of those schools; what was the substance of his letter to the Swansea local education authority; when was it sent; whether he has received any reply; and, if so, what was the substance of such reply.
  MR. McKENNA: I understand that the local education authority have paid all the teachers' salaries on the scale which the authority has hitherto recognised, but not on the scale which the managers claim. I had an interview with the managers on 16th July, and on the same date wrote to the local education authority inviting the observations of the authority on the statements made by the

  803
  managers. This letter was acknowledged on 18th July with an intimidation that the holidays would prevent an immediate full reply, but that as prompt attention as possible would be given to it.
  LORD R. CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the scale paid by the managers is the same scale as obtained in the council schools, and is the scale insisted upon by the National Union of Teachers; also whether this dispute has not been going on for some two or three years; and whether he does not see his way to induce the local education authority to arrive at a settlement?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am most anxious to see a settlement attained. The dispute has been going on some considerable time, but not on the precise point now raised. I do not understand that any scale is required by the National Union of Teachers or exists in council schools. Every teacher is paid according to his own particular merits.
  LORD R. CECIL: Does the right hon.; Gentleman know that these teachers were called out by the National Union on the question of pay?
  MR. McKENNA: I have not received any information on that point.

  Mortomley School Teachers' Salaries.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is satisfied that the teachers of the Roman Catholic school at Mortomley have now been paid the salaries which have been overdue to them for some considerable time.
  MR. McKENNA: I understand that the matter referred to by the noble Lord is in the course of immediate settlement between the local education authority and the managers of the school.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOT: If the matter is not settled before the end of the week will the right hon. Gentleman use his powers to being about a settlement?
  MR. McKENNA: I think it unnecessary to make any statement on that point.

  Tweed Trout Fisheries.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, in spite of the recent deputation from the border towns to the Prime Minister on the subject of the trout fishings in the Tweed, and his reply thereto, the obnoxious trespass notices are still in existence, and the people of the district are thereby debarred from enjoying their traditional privileges; and whether, in view of the feeling entertained in regard to the combined action of the new riparian proprietors, he will, before the end of the session, make a statement as to the intentions of the Government in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): As my hon. friend is aware, the duty of informing myself fully upon this subject was laid upon me recently by the Prime Minister, with a view to its further consideration by the Government, and I am taking the necessary steps to that end; but it will not be possible to make any further statement as to the intention of the Government before the end of the session.

  House Letting in Scotland.
  Mr. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can say when the Report of the Committee on House-letting in Scotland will be issued.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Report has not yet been received; but I understand that it will be received shortly.

  Coote Estate, Elphin, Roscommon.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three years ago the contract was entered into for the sale of the estate of Stanley V. Coote, Esq., Elphin, Roscommon, to the tenants under the Land Act, that the cash to be paid to the landlord has not yet been advanced, and that consequently the sale remains incomplete; and whether, seeing that the cash necessary to complete the sale in the case of the King-Harman estate has been found some time ago, he will say whether there is any special reason for the delay

  805
  in settling the Coote estate, which was listed at the same time as the other.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The purchase agreements in this case were lodged two and a half years ago. The advances would, in the ordinary course, have been made before now, but there has been some delay in connection with the allotment of turbary for the use of the purchasing tenants. Arrangements are now being made as regards turbary, and as soon as these are completed the Commissioners will be in a position to make the advancess.

  Protestant Boys in Belfast Roman Catholic School.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has considered the statement on oath, sworn before a magistrate, of William Welsh, a Protestant, father and only surviving parent of the two Protestant boys, William J. Welsh and Samuel Welsh, who are detained in Nazareth Lodge Roman Catholic Industrial School, Belfast, against his expressed wishes and conscientious convictions; and whether he will now make the necessary order for their immediate discharge to their father's custody under the circumstances that he is anxious and well able to maintain them.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have received from the hon. and gallant Member the statement referred to in the Question, but as I have informed him by letter, I have found it necessary to direct further local inquiries to be made before arriving at a decision in the matter.

  Irish Untenanted Land.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many owners of untenanted land have refused to sell such land to the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants; and whether he will state, with reference to such cases, the acreage of the land which the Estates Commissioners desired to buy and the price offered per acre in each case.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform mo that in sixteen of the cases referred to in paragraph 41 of their
  806
  special Report on Evicted Tenants the owners have refused to accept the Commissioners' offer for untenanted land, which was required for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants and for the other purposes of the Act. The land comprised in these sixteen cases amounted t') 3,405 acres, and the estimated price, inclusive of the bonus, averaged £22 4s. an acre. A reference to paragraph 41 will show that a large number of the owners of untenanted land who were approached by the Commissioners either failed to reply or refused to sell upon any terms, and therefore no precise offers were, or could be, made. In the case of thirty-three evicted holdings which are in the occupation of twenty-two owners, the owners have refused to accept the Commissioners' offer. The land in these thirty-three cases comprised 1,787 acres, and the Commissioners' estimated price, including the bonus, amounted to an average of £12 7s. per acre. A reference to paragraph 23 of the Commissioners Special Report will show that in 290 similar cases the owners refused to allow inspection, with the result that no offer for purchase could be made.

  Dickens' Estate, Ballybrood, Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-tenant of Ireland is he aware that on the Dickens' property in the townland of Crongheeveera, Ballybrood, county Limerick, there is a farm from which Thomas O'Brien was evicted some years since, but which has always been kept in the landlord's hands; and, now that the tenants have all purchased, will he ask the Estates Commissioners to open negotiations with the agent, Mr. Arthur White, of George Street, Limerick, with the view of admitting back to his father's farm, Patrick O'Brien, of Cloughadareen, Pallasgrean, county Limerick.
  MR. BIRRELL: The eviction in this case did not take place within twenty-five years of the passing of the Act of 1903, and the evicted tenant's representative is, therefore, not eligible for reinstatement under Section 2.

  The Secretary for Scotland.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister why no Minister representing the Scottish Office was present when the financial Resolution

  807
  relating to the Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Bill was considered in Committee of the Whole House early on Wednesday morning; and whether, when Members are kept here very late to discuss Scottish measures, he will take care that some responsible Minister shall also be in attendance to facilitate their progress.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am sorry I was not present, but I was not aware that the Bill was coming forward. I will do my best to be present in future.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)asked if there was any way by which the Prime Minister could let his Ministers know exactly what business was coming on.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): Ministers are like other men, and not always infallible, and sometimes are mistaken in their estimates.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Can the Prime Minister ensure that Ministers shall be present when Questions relating I to their Departments are asked?
  Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think that such absence often occurs [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] except when the earlier Questions are rushed through, for some reason, at a greater pace than usual, and so upset calculations.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: It has occurred many times of late.

  The Sittings of Parliament.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he has been made aware that there is a widespread desire among Members of the House that Parliament, should not sit in the dog days, but should be prorogued about the end of June and meet again in the later months of the year; and can he undertake that the Government will consider during the ensuing recess whether this desire can be met.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have repeatedly referred to this widespread desire, and am myself one of those to whom it has spread; and my hon. friend may be sure that it is always
  808
  present to the mind of the Government in arranging the business of the session.

  Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister for what day it is intended that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill shall be put down.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot yet state the day.

  The Transvaal Loan.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask when the Transvaal Loan Bill will be brought in?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the Resolution will be taken on, Monday next.

  PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTION FOR PROPELLING POWER) BILL.
  Lords' Message, requesting a copy of the Report from the Select Committee-appointed by this House on the Merchant Shipping (Tonnage Deduction for Propelling Power) Bill, together with the Proceedings of the Committee and Minutes of Evidence, considered:—
  Printed copy to be communicated.

NEW BILL.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  "To grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the local loans fund; and for other purposes relating to-local loans," presented by Mr. Runciman; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 310.]

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
MR. CHAPLIN, on Clause 1, moved an Amendment with

809
the object of describing the officers of the Board of Agriculture to be set up for the purposes of the Bill as small holdings inspectors, and not Commissioners. He said his object in moving the Amendment was to point out that for the purposes of the Bill the appointment of a number of gentlemen who were to be called Commissioners appeared to him wholly unnecessary. For years past the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, and the Board of Agriculture had been in the habit of appointing additional inspectors for any special purpose which might arise in connection with the working of their Departments, and he failed to see why it was necessary to depart from that well-recognised practice upon the present occasion. Some of these inspectors had been appointed for very long periods and for very important objects. He had one such occasion in mind when, a good many years ago, the Government of the day were employed in extirpating cattle disease from the country. The matter was considered with great care on that occasion by the Board of Agriculture, but it was not thought necessary to call the men who were appointed to deal with the matter by the name of Commissioners. The problem was one which affected the whole of the Kingdom, and was certainly not of less importance than the problem they proposed to deal with by the Bill before the House. These gentlemen, at the time he was referring to, were appointed simply as ordinary inspectors, but they were invested with novel and ample powers, and after many years, involving the expenditure of large sums of money, they were at last successful in accomplishing the object of their appointment. What he wished to know from the Government was whether there was any satisfactory reason or necessity for establishing gentlemen as Commissioners under the Bill. The objections to such appointments was that they gave the idea that for the purpose of the Bill there was to be established a new tribunal, which was to be to some extent, at all events, independent of the Board of Agriculture. He knew quite well that by the words of the Bill these gentlemen were called upon to act under the direction of the Board of Agriculture itself, but that, in his opinion, was but an additional reason for terming them by Some name such as inspectors. In view of the large
810
expenditure the measure would involve, it was desirable to avoid the appointment of a novel tribunal whose members were likely to receive larger salaries than were necessary for inspectors. Another point was that the Board of Agriculture was always represented in that House, but if any question arose in connection with the working of this measure in the country, and upon which hon. Members might wish information, instead of giving notice to the Board and getting an immediate answer, they would have to seek it of this Commissioner who might be miles away, and consequently it would take considerable time before a reply was obtained. He thought the House had a right to some explanation from the Government as to why these gentlemen should be appointed at largo salaries—higher than was necessary—to act as inspectors. For this reason he moved the Amendment in his name.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, to leave out from beginning of line to end of line 13, and insert the words, 'The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as the Board) shall appoint such inspectors for the purposes of this Act, to be called small holdings inspectors, (hereinafter referred to as the inspectors).'"—(Mr. Chaplin.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'shall,' in page 1, line 10, stand part of the Bill."
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,)said the right hon. Gentleman and himself had discussed this question in that House and upstairs very frequently, and he was afraid he had no information which he could usefully add. The Commissioners appointed under the Bill would not act as a separate tribunal or an independent body, but would act under the direction of the Board of Agriculture. At the same time, they were people who might usefully and properly be invested with more dignity and importance than that implied in the word "inspectors." It should also be observed that these Commissioners were not only inquiry agents of the Government, but in certain circumstances they would exercise semi-executive functions. The right hon. Gentleman had afforded him a precedent for naming these gentlemen as inspectors, but in reply he would give him another,

811
viz., the Commissioner of Labour under the Board of Trade. On the whole, and after most careful consideration, in the drafting of the Bill the Government felt that they must adhere to the description they had given these gentlemen.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid the Committee upstairs and the House at large wished to know what was to be the number of these gentlemen, and what were to be their actual duties. They had tried to ascertain these facts, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite had kept them very politely in the dark. The hon. Member for Barnstaple wanted to know whether these Commissioners were to be people whose duty it was to satisfy the Board of Agriculture as to the demand or otherwise for small holdings, and had pointed out that in his constituency there were a large number of villagers. Well, in most constituencies there were a good many villagers, and if these Commissioners had to go about the country inquiring into the demand for small holdings, it would be necessary to appoint, not two Commissioners, but 200. If it were necessary to appoint these gentlemen on so large a scale then they should not be called Commissioners but inspectors, because they would be simply carrying out the functions of inspectors. If, however, on the other hand, those gentlemen were to be persons of supreme power who could override the local authorities, then they ought to be people of considerable influence and position, and it should not be part of their duties to go about the country inquiring at each village as to the requirements of the inhabitants for small holdings and allotments. They must either be inspectors of the Board of Agriculture, or people of supreme authority, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman might take the House into his confidence and tell them what these people were really going to be, and also their salaries and their functions.
MR. LANE-FOXasked whether the time had not arrived when information upon the matter, which had been postponed in the Committee, might be forthcoming. It was the first opportunity the House and the country had had of ascertaining from the rigit hon. Gentleman what the intention of the Bill was. The whole
812
crux of the measure was involved in the work and scope of these Commissioners, and the House had a perfect right to ask for a further explanation. It had been suggested that a large number of these Commissioners would be required. Anyone who considered the cost must see how important it was to the country that they should have further information. The whole thing had been referred to as an agricultural drama at Drury Lane, but he thought the House would agree that it had row become a farce. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to throw some light on the subject.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman had used a phrase which he seemed to have inherited from the Secretary for Scotland viz., that he could give no reason for their action except that the Government had carefully considered the matter and thought that what they were doing was the best. However satisfactory a ground to take up that might be for the Government, it did not by any means carry conviction to those who did not happen to see eye to eye with them in the matter. It had always been usual for a Government not only to inform the House that they were going to do a certain thing, but also to state the grounds upon which such action was to be taken. The right hon. Gentleman would see that under the working of the Bill two classes of officers were contemplated, viz., the Commissioners and another body of officers described as "other officers." Was he right in supposing that the last named were to be subordinate in rank and importance to the two or more Commissioners? He conjectured also that the idea of the Government was that the number of Commissioners would not be large—for "two or more" could not mean 200 or 2,000—not more than four or five, or some relatively small number. What was the kind of salaries the Government proposed to give to the Commissioners, and were the "other officers" to be, on the whole, a class that could be described as inspectors? It was essential that the House should understand these things. He quite agreed that it was not fair to press the right hon. Gentleman, until he knew the magnitude of the work, to give them the exact number of these Commissioners, but he thought it was not too much to ask for a

813
general explanation of the Government's scheme—whether it was proposed to put a small hierarchy of gentlemen at the head of a large staff of subordinates, or whether the work was to be done by head officials, and also what salaries were contemplated. The question of salaries was of importance, not merely from the taxpayers' point of view, but because if the House knew the salaries which it was proposed to pay they could tell what class of men the Government thought of appointing to carry out the work. If this information were afforded he thought the House would have a very fair idea of the machinery of the Bill.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields,)said the Government could not state the number of officials who would be concerned in carrying out the Bill until they knew what its scope would be, and the same difficulty confronted them when they came to the question of remuneration. At the present stage it was impossible to determine what amount of work would have to be grappled with, and they could not tie themselves down by statutory enactments which were not to be varied. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the phrase "two or more" must mean not many more than two, but he thought that the proper legal construction upon such a phrase was that there should not be less than two, and no limit was put on the word "more." There might be two Commissioners or there might be more; how many more depended upon the work of the Bill as it developed. It was impossible to attempt to organise the staff until they knew the work that staff was required to carry out. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment did not ask so much about the number and salary of the Commissioners; his desire was that they should be called inspectors. He thought, however, everyone would agree that the name "inspector" would not be appropriate to the class of men who would be set up under the Bill. Their duties would be of a character far beyond the work of an ordinary departmental inspector. They would have to inquire into the demand for small holdings and allotments, they would have to submit reports and advise the county council, and they might also be called upon to
814
prepare schemes. Of course, whatever they did would be done under the direction and control of the Board of Agriculture. The whole question was one of organisation of the staff, and the real check upon the Board of Agriculture as to salaries and number of officers would be the Treasury, to whom such matters would be submitted, and by whom they would be closely scrutinised.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSthought the Government might tell them whether the Bill was to be made operative throughout the country within a certain limit of time. If it was to come into operation within a few years then the country might reckon on an enormous expense. If all these elaborate inquiries were to be made in the counties and rural districts of England, inquiry after inquiry and report after report, and all within a reasonable time, then it was nonsense to talk about one or two Commissioners and one or two officers: an army would be required. It would be no difficult matter for the country to realise what the expenditure under the Bill would be if the measure were to become operative within a short period of time. The Bill had been described first as a drama, then as a farce, but he would call it a brilliant piece of political window dressing. The setting up of such a vast machinery at incalculable expense was wholly unnecessary. They might just as well throw the money into the sea. It was a curious thing that the Government, when it had to its hand machinery which only needed a little inexpensive reinforcement, should wish to set up all this remarkable new machinery which partook of the nature of a Land Court and a bureaucracy, and the extent of whose duties no one could define. With a little improvement of the existing machinery an effective system for providing small holdings wherever they were wanted throughout the country could be easily devised.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he would like the Government to see to it that these Commissioners were not elected only for their technical knowledge of agriculture, which of course was essential, but also for their knowledge of the conditions of rural social life. There was also another point of great importance. He trusted that none

815
of the officers appointed would have the smallest trace of Party connection. He could not imagine anything more hopelessly upsetting to the whole scheme of the Bill than that the Commissioners or whatever they were called, should be connected with any political Party. It would be impossible for them to carry out their duties properly if they were not absolutely free from political bias.
MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that when the Bill was before the Committee he had expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not see fit to adopt a system of inspectors rather than of Commissioners, because if, to use a colloquial expression, he had "stuck" to inspectors, he had the machinery at hand at the Board of Agriculture. What happened under this Bill, however, was that the right hon. Gentleman started by appointing "two or more" Commissioners, the total number being unascertained. He was glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer present, because he was sure that with his ideas of economy he would be very much disturbed by the vista of extravagance which was opened up before him in this Bill. If Commissioners were appointed they would have to be paid £1,200 or £1,500 a year, and this sum was not confined to two Commissioners but to "two or more." Surely they were entitled to know how many of them there were to be. In regard to that matter he might remind the right hon. Gentleman of the Scottish Small Landholders Bill. A great deal of abuse had been levelled at the Scottish Bill, he had no doubt rightly, but even from the Scottish Bill they might learn something. What did the Scottish Bill say? Liberty was given to appoint not more than five persons as constituting the Scottish Land Court, and not more than three persons as the Agricultural Commissioners. He would like to pray in aid the provisions of the Scottish Bill, let alone all common sense, and ask why they could not settle in this Bill the number of Commissioners and their salaries. The Bill might say not more than three, or four, or five, but to say "two or more" left the whole matter in the region of speculation and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in absolute uncertainty as to how much expenditure was going to be thrown upon a particular year. His first point then was that it would be better to have inspectors
816
rather than Commissioners. His second point was that they should know what limit there was going to be to the number of Commissioners and what their salaries were to be. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley had said, the present proposal seemed likely to throw a huge expenditure upon the Exchequer.
MR. MILDMAYthought the right hon. gentleman was not justified in keeping the House in the dark on this subject. Surely they had a right to know how many of these Commissioners there were to be. The Government might not be able to give the exact figures between two and 100, but at all events they ought to indicate some figure. Nor did he see why their remuneration should not be stated at this stage. They knew what their duties would be, and it ought not to be impossible to put some bounds to their remuneration. They had, he thought, a right to press for more information. He also agreed that these Commissioners should not be men who had been connected with any political Party warfare, because any appointments of that kind could not fail to wreck the Bill.
MR. HARCOURT, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley, said the Government intended the Bill to be operative within a reasonable limit of time, but he did not share with the right hon. Gentleman the opinion that it would mean the employment of a huge army of officials, nor did he share the feeling that there would be pickings for Party politicians in country districts. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman allowed his mind to sink to that level of construction of an Act of Parliament. He was sure there would be no taint of Party considerations about those who were appointed. He would not be responsible for the appointments, but he was sure that the President of the Board of Agriculture and the Secretary to the Treasury would join in the hon. Member's political purism in order to secure an impartial tribunal. The hon. Member wished to know the number of the Commissioners but it was impossible to give it at this stage, but he could give an assurance that their number would be limited by the requirements of the time as they

817
developed. Then the right hon. Gentleman wanted to know something about their remuneration. That was a matter which, of course, must excite the curiousity of the Commissioners themselves when appointed, but it was a question which must be decided by negotiation between the Board of Agriculture and the Treasury, and if the right hon. Gentleman knew as much about the Treasury as he did he need be under no apprehension that the taxpayer would be unduly mulcted.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was not a member of the Grand Committee, but he claimed that the Opposition had a right to be fully heard in regard to the Bill. The Amendment commended itself to him for this reason; "Commissioners" was a very large word and might mean anything. It might even mean a separate department, and the establishment of a Land Court. If the Amendment was accepted, these people would only be inspectors of a Department instead of forming a Department themselves. As a taxpayer, he feared he might have to pay more for Commissioners than he would for inspectors.
MR. CHAPLINowned that he was not altogether free from the apprehensions expressed by the hon. Baronet, having failed to extract any information except that the right hon. Gentleman wished to add to the dignity and importance of the office, the duties of which involved not only judicial inquiry but some administrative functions besides. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which he informed them that the number of the Commissioners would be limited to the requirements of the time as they developed did not advance them one iota further than they were before. He would not detain the House as to the duties of the Commissioners, but they wished for some information as to their number and their salaries. In regard to this the right hon. Gentleman had told them nothing. Their number might be quite unlimited. Having done his best to extract information and failed, he had no alternative but to press the Amendment to a division.
VISCOUNT TURNOUR, in supporting the Amendment,
818
said the proposals of the Government seemed to lack elasticity. As for giving the House and country any idea of what the exact position of these gentlemen was to be, for all the information that had been given the right hon. Gentleman might as well not have spoken at all The House was in exactly the same position to-day as when the Bill was introduced. The Commissioners under this Bill could not be compared with the Commissioner of Labour. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman or some member of the Government would give the House some idea of the position I and status of these inspectors, and also I of the number of inspectors it was intended to appoint.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYthought it was a pity that the House should go to a division without some explanation. As usual they had the Government speaking with half-a-dozen different voices. The House certainly ought to know more about these Commissioners. He personally thought the precedent of the Irish Land Acts should have been followed, and the names of the Commissioners put into the Bill. But at all events they ought to know how many there were to be and what their salaries were to be, and he hoped some member of the Government would give the information.
MR. LUPTONsaid that as the noble Lord who had just sat down had spoken with such an air of sincerity he thought a word or two in explanation ought to be said. If the noble Lord turned to Clause 3, Section 2, he would see: "If the County Council decline to undertake this duty … the Board may direct the Commissioners themselves to prepare one or more draft schemes." His noble friend would see very plainly from that that until it was known whether the county councils declined, it was impossible to say what number of Commissioners would be required.
MR. CLAVELL SALTER,said that what he desired to know was how the Government expected this measure to work. They were going to start two classes of officials, one obviously of a high class and one described as "such other officers as they think fit." It might be assumed, therefore,

819
that the latter would be in a subordinate position. The leading Commissioners were to ascertain in the country districts whether there was any demand for small holdings. They were to report to the Government, and the Government in opposition to the wishes of the county councils might entrust these gentlemen with the preparation of a scheme and ultimately use them as instruments of coercion against the county councils. He therefore desired to know how their work was to be carried out. Was it contemplated by the Government that the Commissioners themselves would do this
work? Would they get into communication with the local people, and would they themselves report to the Government? If so, the Commissioners would have to be very numerous. If they were to act through other gentlemen, would the Government say whether those gentlemen whom the Commissioners were entitled to employ and pay would be local persons? He thought they were entitled to an answer on these points.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 159; Noes, 51. (Division List No. 401.)

AYES

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Morse, L. L.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Fuller, John Michael F.

Myer, Horatio

Ambrose, Robert

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Napier, T. B.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Gooch, George Peabody

Nicholls, George

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Grant, Corrie

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

Baker, Joseph A, (Finsbury, E.)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nolan, Joseph

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Hall, Frederick

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Beauchamp, E.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Beck, A. Cecil

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Harwood, George

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pollard, Dr.

Bertram, Julius

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hedges, A. Paget

Pullar, Sir Robert

Bowerraan, C. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Radford, G. H.

Branch, James

Henry, Charles S.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Horniman, Emslie John

Rees, J. D.

Byles, William Pollard

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Ridsdale, E. A.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Chance Frederick William

Laidlaw, Robert

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lambert, George

Rose, Charles Day

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Lamont, Norman

Rowlands, J.

Cleland, J. W.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Runciman, Walter

Clough, William

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Clynes, J. R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lewis, John Herbert

Sears, J. E.

Cooper, G. J.

Lough, Thomas

Sherwell, Arthur James

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

Lupton, Arnold

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cox, Harold

Lyell, Charles Henry

Simon, John Allsebrook

Crooks, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Crossley, William J.

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

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Curran, Peter Francis

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Snowden, P.

Dalziel, James Henry

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Stanger, H. Y.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

M'Callum, John M.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

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

M'Killop, W.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Maddison, Frederick

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Sutherland, J. E.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Markham, Arthur Basil

Ure, Alexander

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Marnham, F. J.

Verney, F. W.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Massie, J.

Vivian, Henry

Essex, R. W.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Everett, R. Lacey

Molteno, Percy Alport

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Fenwick, Charles

Montagu, E. S.

Wardle, George J.

Ferens, T. R.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Waterlow, D. S.

Ffrench, Peter

Morrell, Philip

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Wills, Arthur Walters

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Winfrey, R.

Pease.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Faber, George Denison (York)

Moore, William

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Balcarres, Lord

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

Gordon, J.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Helmsley, Viscount

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. J. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hills, J. W.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

Turnour, Viscount

Cave, George

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

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Courthope, G. Loyd

Magnus, Sir Philip

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

MR. CHAPLIN*MR. CHAPLIN moved to leave out the words "except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act." He explained that this was the first of a series of Amendments to the first five clauses, the object of which was to free the county councils from coercion by the Commissioners. The only exception in the Bill to which the words he proposed to leave out referred was where the Commissioners were acting in the case of any default by the county council when they were required to repay the expenses to the Board. The House was aware of the general effect of the first five clauses, which related entirely to the appointment of the Commissioners and the duties and powers vested in them. Having been appointed under Clause 1, their first duty was to ascertain the extent to which there was a demand for small holdings in the several counties, and also the extent to which that demand could be legitimately satisfied under the Act of 1892 and under the operation of this Act. This was done under Clause 2. Under Clauses 3 and 4 the Commissioners were invested with further powers and further duties; and under Clause 5, after all the necessary operations had been gone through, and the scheme had been presented for small holdings, with the approval and sanction of the Board, the county council were required to give effect to that scheme, and if they refused the Commissioners appointed under this Act were empowered and
822
would be instructed, muse in need be instructed, by the Board to carry out that scheme themselves. In these circumstances he had been considering in what way these difficulties could possibly be met, because it was to this provision for what he must call coercing the county councils and for spending—quite possibly, as they thought, for squandering—the rates, that they in that part of the House without a single exception took the greatest objection. They regarded it as a new and dangerous, and he believed he should not exaggerate if he said an unconstitutional, departure from all the traditions hitherto accepted in regard to-local government in this country, with the exception of one or two comparatively trifling matters relating to sanitary purposes and the public health. They thought it an entire departure that any Government Department should be empowered to over-ride the wishes and decisions of a great local body like the county council, which, they muse remember, were elected on the widest possible suffrage. The right hon. Gentleman might say, as he had said the other night in Committee, "Oh, but such extreme measures as this are not likely ever to be taken." But if they were not going to use these powers, why on earth should they begin by putting into the Bill such proposals, which were certain to put up the backs of the county councils and prejudice them both against the Government and against the measure

823
which they were proposing? And there was no use in it. He had pointed out this both on the Second Reading of the Bill, and again upstairs, and he had quoted the well-known case of the Forest of Epping, where powers of a similar character, which were in existence more than fifty years ago under the old Sanitary Act of 1866, were placed by the Secretary of State in the hands of a person with orders to carry out proceedings which the local authority of those days had already refused to undertake. That was attended with such disastrous results that no Government Department from that day to this had ever again attempted for a moment to enforce proceedings of that kind. The Leader of the Opposition had called attention to this, and again and again his right hon. friend had driven this argument home. Not a single Member on the other side of the House, and not a single Member on the Government Bench, had ever attempted to refute it. He felt, therefore, that he was justified in reminding right hon. Gentlemen opposite of the position with which they would be confronted if they ever attempted to coerce the county councils in earnest. He would be told that their Bill would be a failure, possibly a dead letter, without these powers. He thought himself that it was exceedingly probable that in its present form the Bill, even if it became law, was destined to have little, if any, success. He based his opinion on two points at least, though he would not confine himself to two. The principal one was that which they were now discussing, the coercion of the county councils, and the other was one on which he would also have something to say when they came to Clause 6 on compulsory hiring. He did not want to see this Bill a failure. Quite the opposite. He was as anxious as anybody in the House, if it were possible, to see a wise extension of the system of small holdings in all parts of the country wherever the locality and the conditions were favourable. He did not believe for a single moment that the county councils were in the least antagonistic to a reform of this character. On the contrary, he believed that if the Government gave up the attempt to coerce them, and they could see their way to carry out with success the scheme presented to them by
824
the Board of Agriculture and the conditions were favourable, the great majority of county councils would be just as ready, and willing to proceed in this matter as the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, or even his right hon. friend the Member for the Bordesley Division himself. Why should it be otherwise? There were no people who were better acquainted with the agricultural conditions which prevailed in the whole of the counties of England and Wales than the members of the county councils. They knew just as well as Members of that House, and probably better, what the benefit would be to the interests of their own counties, the country, and the community as a whole, if the rural industry of the Kingdom could be supplemented, especially in certain localities, by the successful cultivation of small holdings in all the various parts of the country. Therefore, he held that the county councils, if they were properly treated, and they were afforded an opportunity of really judging for themselves when and how far schemes of this kind might be made with success, would go into the question with just as much zeal and energy as his right hon. friend opposite. But supposing he was wrong. Then he had placed on the Paper Amendments to several of these clauses to provide an alternative by which they could ensure making the Bill a success if they availed themselves of it. Clause 5, if amended in the way he suggested, would read—
"5. (1.) It shall be the duty of a county council to carry into effect any scheme prepared by them or which they elect as hereinafter mentioned to carry into effect, within such time as may be specified in the scheme, or within such further time as may be allowed by the Board, and for that purpose the council may exercise any of the powers conferred on them by the Small Holdings, Act, 1892, or by this Act.
"(2.) In the case of a scheme prepared by the Board unless the county council within six months after the confirmation thereof by the Board give notice to the Board that they elect to carry the same into effect the Board may take such steps as may be necessary for carrying the scheme into effect, and shall for the purpose have all the powers of a county council in relation to small holdings under the Small Holdings Act, 1892, and this Act, and those Acts shall apply as if references to the Board were substituted for reference" to a county council:
"Provided that the expenses incurred by the Board in the exercise of such powers in

825
relation to any scheme shall be paid out of the Small Holdings account."
There was already in the Bill a clause giving very considerable powers in this direction. If his Amendment were adopted, the whole of the existing machinery for obtaining information, for the preparation of schemes, for obtaining the approval of the Board for these schemes, and for communicating them to the county councils of the country, would remain absolutely intact. If the change he suggested gave real promise of success and the people desired it, he was confident I the county councils would not decline to accept it, because in a matter of this kind they would infinitely prefer to have the control in their own hands rather than in the hands of any outside authority. If they declined, the remedy provided would be complete. In the first place, the people who desired an operation of this kind would be able to give effect to their wishes in the most legitimate and natural way, because at the next election they could turn out the recalcitrant members who had ignored their wishes and put others in their place. Meantime, the I Board could go on with their scheme with out any delay, and as the Bill was put I forward with the view of promoting a great national object, he could not conceive why there should be any objection I to its being done out of national funds. He believed his Amendment, if accepted, would do more to make the measure really operative and successful in the country than anything else that could be proposed. He hoped all sides of the House would take this question into their most serious and unprejudiced consideration. Unless the Bill were altered in the direction he had indicated, not withstanding all the hopes and anticipations formed of it by its author and his earnest desire for a considerable addition to the small holdings in this country, he was convinced that it would not achieve the object which they desired He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
MR. SPEAKER: I did not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman on account of the position he occupies in regard to this question and because I desired to hear what he had to say upon this point. I have, however, come to the
826
conclusion that this Amendment is out of order. This Clause lays down that—
"And all expenses incurred by those Commissioners and officers in the execution of their duties under this Act, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury shall (except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act) be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament."
That exception must refer to Clause 5, paragraph (2), which says—
"Provided that such expenses as the Board certify to have been incurred by the Commissioners in the exercise of such powers in relation to any scheme shall on demand be repaid to the Board by the county council in default out of the county fund."
That was the exception contemplated in Clause 1. This Amendment would cause those expenses instead of being charged on the county council rate, to come out of the Small Holdings Account, and it would relieve the rates at the expense of the national exchequer. That would involve an additional charge on the exchequer, and no such proposal as that can be made upon the Report stage of a Bill.
MR. CHAPLINsaid with great respect he desired to call attention to the fact that there was already in the Bill a subsection which appeared to embody a great deal of what he had suggested in his Amendment. Sub-section (3) of Clause 5 provided that—
"If it appears to the Board that the carrying out of a scheme under this Act has resulted or is likely to result in a loss, the Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay or undertake to pay out of the Snail Holdings Account the whole or any part of that loss."
There was also a provision in the Act of 1902 which still held good, to the effect that the county councils were prohibited from acquiring land unless they saw the way to obtain it at a price which would prevent any loss whatever to them. If that provision was retained there could be no loss, and if there was no loss there could be no transfer of charge to Imperial funds. It was upon those two clauses that he desired to ask Mr. Speaker whether his Amendment might still be permissible.
MR. SPEAKER: I cannot get over the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman suggested himself, that the effect of this Amendment, together with his other

827
Amendments, is to transfer a charge which the Bill, as it now stands, lays upon the rates. That is the whole point. The right hon. Gentleman is anxious to transfer that charge to the Exchequer, and we cannot do that upon the Report stage of a Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the position in which they were placed was really very significant and serious. They had not been allowed to deal with this subject on the Committee Stage because the Bill was sent upstairs. In the opinion of hon. Members on both sides of the House this was the most important and crucial point in the whole measure, and many of I them thought it was on the decision the House came to upon this subject that the success or failure of the Bill was likely to turn. Could any means be suggested by which the enforced silence of the House as a whole might be got over? Could the Government, by recommitting the Bill or otherwise, give them a chance of debating and coming to a conclusion upon the most important, the most difficult, and the most crucial question in the whole Bill?
Mr. HARCOURTsaid he would not now proceed to argue the merits of the Amendment. In replying on the whole question, he hoped to be able to say something which might relieve the difficulties which had been felt in this matter. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Chippenham Division had on the Notice Paper an Amendment on the subject with which they were now dealing. He was able to make an announcement to the House, which, he thought, would indirectly carry out the hon. Baronet's suggestion. He had been throughout in close communication with the representatives of the County Councils Association as to the proposals contained in the Bill generally. There were several points which they wished to have altered when the Bill was in Committee. He had met them on practically all those points except one. He had met representatives of the County Councils Association again to-day in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they had considered the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division, which contained the final request put forward by the County Councils Association. It was the
828
only point which he had not been able to meet. He at once told the representatives of the association that it would be out of order to discuss it on the Report stage of the Bill, because it proposed to put a charge on the Executive. But ort behalf of the Government they would make a suggestion to the County Councils Association, and, though he did not wish to pledge them, they gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer and him self the impression that it was satisfactory to them The suggestion was that regulations should be passed in the form of a Treasury Minute, stating exactly the method of action Which would be taken by the Treasury under Subsection (3) of Clause 5. In Committee words were added to the sub-section which he had not intended should be put in, but he intended loyally to accept the Amendment which was made. That subsection dealt with the action which might be taken by the Board of Agriculture in either of two alternative cases. The words of the subsection were—
"If it appears to the Board that the carrying out of a scheme under this Act has resulted, or is likely to result in a loss, the Board may, with the consent of the Treasury pay or undertake to pay out of the Small Holdings Account the whole or any part of that loss."
What the County Councils Association had asked was that there should be some definite pledge that in cases where the county councils had acted themselves, and where they were able to obtain a certificate from the Board of Agriculture that they had acted reasonably, one half of the loss should be paid by the Treasury. He was authorised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that, subject to the precautions and inquiry which would be taken by the Treasury in this matter, and, subject to the limitations they might lay down, they were prepared to issue a Minute which would go to the councils, saying that in those cases they would pay half the losses that might be incurred on receipt of a certificate from the Board of Agriculture that the county council had acted reasonably and taken due precaution, and that the Board were satisfied the loss was irrecoverable. It did not carry out all that was wished on the opposite side, but he thought it satisfied the County Councils Association, whose cordial help, he was most anxious to have after the Bill came into operation.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthanked the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for the evident desire which moved him to meet the wishes on the Opposition side of the House. He submitted, however, that if the Bill already authorised a payment which was now fixed at a half by the arbitrary action of the Treasury, it was surely open to the House to fix it permanently at a whole.
Sir W. ROBSON, on the point of order, submitted that there was some difference, as regards the potential burden on the Exchequer, between the option the Bill now gave to the Treasury and a compulsion which would operate against the Treasury.
MR. CHAPLINasked whether he was to understand from the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was within the power of the Treasury to make this concession even supposing it was not in the Bill. If that was so, could the power of the Treasury to pay a half not be extended to pay the whole?
MR. HARCOURTsaid the power was in the Bill at the present moment. The subsection which he had already quoted gave the power. What he had proposed to do was perfectly simple. It was to meet the desire of the County Councils Association that the Treasury should state beforehand how they would proceed under this clause. Where the Board were acting in default of county council, the Board of Agriuculture might, with the consent of the Treasury, pay the whole or any part of the loss.
MR. SPEAKER: In regard to the point of order which has been put to me, on the face of it, so far as I have been able to understand it, I do not see how the Treasury can get over the proviso to; paragraph (2) which says—
"Provided that such expenses of the Commssiners the Board certify to have been incurred by the Commissioners in the exercise of such powers in relation to any scheme shall on demand be repaid to the Board by the county council in default out of the county fund, …."
I do not know how the Treasury can go behind that and say that, whatever, happens, they are to pay half.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether it would he in order to endeavour
830
to embody in Subsection (3) the substance either of the concession which the right hon. Gentleman had just very courteously made, or, even to go further and say that the concession should cover the whole of the loss to the county council in carrying out the provisions of the Bill. It seemed to him most natural to suppose that if the Treasury could pay a half they could also, if they were willing, pay the whole.
MR. SPEAKER: It seems to me that when Subsection (3) is reached it may be possible to leave out "may" and insert—I put it in common parlance—"shall pay half."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is it not equally open to the House to direct that they shall pay the whole?
MR. SPEAKER: No, I do not think so.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps we ought to reserve any more detailed questions until we come to the subsection.
SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, if carried, would leave the matter in a worse position than it was in now. The Amendment would limit the power of the Treasury to pay less than the whole. A county council might undertake a scheme whereby a loss would be incurred, and it was conceivable that the council should bear either the whole or part of the loss. He sincerely hoped that power would be left to the Treasury to pay only part of the loss.
MR. CAVEsaid that the point had not yet been made quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman distinguished between the two cases, the case in which the County Council carried out a scheme and that in which the scheme was carried out by the Commissioners. Would the Treasury Minute apply to both?
MR. HARCOURTsaid that where the Commissioners had acted in default of the county council, then the sub-section of the Bill would become operative for this purpose, and there would be no Minute. The Minute applied to the case

831
where the county council was acting without any default. The Minute would then be drawn up and, subject to proofs of due and reasonable precautions being forthcoming, there should be paid one half of the loss.
MR. HICKS BEACH MR. HICKS BEACH moved an Amendment providing that the Commissioners, acting under the directions of the Board, shall, "on the application of any five or more county electors or of the council of any borough or urban or rural district, hold a local inquiry to" ascertain the extent to which there was a demand, either actual or prospective, for small holdings in the several counties, and the extent to which it was reasonably practicable to satisfy the demand. He thought it very important that the Commissioners should not go roaming about the country to see whether there was an actual or prospective demand for small holdings and allotments. It would, he contended, seriously reduce the expenses of the Commissioners if, instead of roaming about the country to stir up a demand for small holdings and allotments, they only went, as provided for by his Amendment, to those places where an application for small holdings or allotments had been made by any five or more county electors, or by the council of any borough or urban or rural district council to hold an inquiry in their locality. He did not think that that would in any way be detrimental to the interest of the Bill or the furtherance of the institution of small holdings and allotments. Unless some such restriction were put in the clause, there would be absolutely false and unreal demands in the country districts for small holdings and allotments. It must be very obvious that if a stranger went to a village and said that if anybody in the village wished to have a small holding or allotment, he thought he would be able to get it for him, everybody in the village would at once say that he would like a small holding or allotment, but the Commissioners would have no means of determining whether these men were in a fit position to take or were capable of working a small holding. It was well known that there were labourers who were perfectly capable of doing so, but, on the other hand, there were others who if put into a small holding or allotment would soon bring disaster
832
upon themselves and on the holding. A public inquiry on the application of five or more county electors, or a borough, urban, or rural district council would be a check on a non-genuine demand. The parish councils knew everybody in the district and they would be able to place before the Commissioners and the County Council itself the names of the people who really wished for small biddings who were of sufficient standing and capable of working them to advantage He hoped the Government would consent to some such words as he had suggested in his Amendment being inserted in the clause. He begged to move.
MR. BECKETTseconded the Amendment. He was quite sure that the reason which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury had put before the House would appeal to the Solicitor-General. But there was a further reason why they should consider seriously the Amendment besides that it would lessen the expenses of the Commissioners, and that was that the electors of the county council and the borough and the urban and rural district councils would be better informed as to the reality of any demand for small holdings or allotments than gentlemen who came down from London in the guise of visitors and simply asked if the villagers wanted small allotments.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 24, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'on the application of any five or more county electors or of the council of any borough or urban or rural district hold a local inquiry to.'"—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would complicate the machinery of the Act while it would be really superfluous. First of all, as the clause now stood, the Commissioners were to ascertain by means of letters, interviews, information from the local authorities, from electors and so forth, whether there was a demand for small holdings in a particular district. Instead of proceeding in this informal manner the hon. Member suggested that the Commissioners should stay their hand until they received an application from five or more electors of county or

833
urban district councils. That would Certainly be a check on the official inquiry, and such procedure had not proved efficient in similar cases. The next point in the Amendment was that there should be a public inquiry by the Commissioners. He thought that would be very undesirable. Under the Bill the Commissioners were to report to the Board, then the county council were to prepare draft schemes, and afterwards a public local inquiry was to be held into the schemes. To introduce another public local inquiry into the machinery of the Bill would be detrimental to its working.
MR. CHAPLINsaid it seemed to him that the Amendment was a thoroughly reasonable one. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why they should make this measure more complicated than at present? But surely no complication would arise if there was an application by five or more electors for a public local inquiry. He could not sec that that procedure would be superfluous. It would be only human nature for the Commissioners to make business for themselves in order to justify their existence. If no application was made by five or more electors for an inquiry that would show that there was no demand in the district or parish for small holdings. Did any one mean to maintain that if there was a real demand for small holdings, five electors could not be got together to make it? If they could be got together there would be some confirmation of the action of the Comissioners. The hon. and learned Gentlemen had said that there were to be two inquiries—one when the schemes were being framed and the other when the land was to be taken. But that was a totally different thing. The local inquiry asked for by the Amendment was to ascertain from what transpired at the inquiry whether there was a real demand for small holdings in the district. What objection could there be to that? If it was desired that the Commissioners should get the best information on which to base their report to the Board there was nothing more certain than that they would get by such an inquiry a really true and reliable indication as to the actuality of the demand.
MR. STANLEY WILSONdid not agree with the
834
Solicitor-General in hoping this Amendment would not be pressed, because he-considered that it was essential that there should be a local inquiry. He rather agreed with the Solicitor-General on one point: he did not like the number-five. The introduction of the Bill would create a demand for small holdings, and it was necessary to know whether those who applied for them were able and fitting persons to carry them on. There were many people in the North of England, he knew, who applied, who were not fit to carry on small holdings, or to equip them. There were people who thought that the Government ought not only to give them the land but to equip it. Therefore he thought that there should be a local inquiry as to the fitness of those who came forward.
MR. ESSEXthought that this somewhat specious Amendment deserved investigation. Of course, it seemed the most natural thing in the world that they should inquire as to which were the districts to which it was desirable that the Bill should be extended, and who were the persons to whom it should be applied. He had directed the attention of his hon. friend to the case of some land which was going into market, where the labourers in the district said they wanted this land cut up into small holdings. They sent to a friend of theirs and asked if he could not do something, this Bill not being passed giving the necessary powers. Their friend went down and saw them and told them that if they wished to get this land cut up into small holdings he would like to know how many of them were willing to sign expressive of a wish to take them. They said fifteen or sixteen. The gentleman undertook to lay the matter before the proper authorities, but in the result he-could only get two persons to send in their names. The reasons the others gave might or might not have been justified, but they said that if they gave in their names not only would they not get the holdings but they would be turned out of their cottages. As he had said, they could only get two-signatories, although in that district small holdings were desired. This, he thought, showed the necessity of an inquiry of such a carefully considered character that in the ascertainment of

835
local needs labouring men should feel they might safely have a voice and opinion though it were against the opinions of the lord of the manor, the squire, or the local estate agent. The necessity for the Bill was shown by the fact that in his own county of Gloucestershire there were now 6,500 fewer people on the land than there were twenty years ago. If this apparently innocent proviso were put in it would, he thought, defeat the ends which they had in view.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had not had the advantage of being a member of the Committee, but he had listened with great interest to the speeches. The speech of the hon. Member for Cirencester led him to a conclusion diametrially opposite to that of the hon. Gentleman, that the labourers feared they would be turned out of their cottages. He was sure that the hon. Member would be the first man to tell the labourers that such fears were unfounded. But supposing there was this fear in the minds of some of the labourers, how were they going to ascertain the demands which existed without inquiry? The fact that these men were shy of expressing their opinion was the very reason for having an inquiry. The Commissioners had to say in what locality the land was desired, in what proximity to other holdings it was desired, and how could they inform themselves unless they had a local inquiry?
MR. GIBBSsaid that the fact that this matter had been discussed upstairs was no reason why they should not have a discussion upon it in the House. He wished to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. The Bill, in the absence of local urgency, would stir up men to apply for holdings who could not work them. If a local committee were appointed such as that suggested they would find out more information than by the means laid down in the Bill.
MR. COURTHOPE, denied that it was against the interests of landlords that small holdings should be created, and said he would like to come across a landlord holding that view.
MR. WINFREY: The Crown, as landlords, were against small holdings.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid he had never discussed the matter with the Crown, bun he had with individual landlords, and their view was not opposed to small holdings. Landlords wanted the men who had left the land back again and they would do any thing to get them back. The reason small holdings had not been established under the Act of 1892 was not that the landlords did not want them, but because owing to the heavy cost of equipment they could not let them at rents at which the would-be holders could make them pay. He was doubtful personally, but he hoped the Bill would bring men back to the land in their thousands and tens of thousands from the point of view of the interest not only of the nation but also of the landlord. He had the misfortune to be a landlord, and he spoke feelingly. It would save the landlord if they could bring the labourers and the yeomen back to the land, and he hoped the Bill would do this. He thought, however, that the demand for small holdings should proceed in the first instance from the locality. It should not be merely created and fostered by people coming from outside. He was perfectly certain that if the people in the locality believed they could profitably cultivate small holdings, they would apply for them, and any demand made in that way would probably be a sound demand after consideration of economic conditions. On the other hand, if Commissioners went from London into a locality and asked this and that person if he would like a piece of land they would perhaps create a false demand and be quite regardless of local and economical conditions. Small holdings would thus be set up which would never have the slightest chance of succeeding. It was in order to prevent that kind of thing that he thought some provision should be put in the Bill to ensure that the demand came from the people in the locality and was not created by Commissioners from outside suggesting to men that it would be nice for them to have a piece of land to cultivate.
MR. LAMBTONexpressed surprise at the observation of the hon. Member for Cirencester that he could not support the Amendment because he

837
feared if labourers expressed their desire for small holdings they might be turned out of their cottages by their landlords.
MR. ESSEXsaid he knew of a case, and he imagined there might be others, where it was feared that an inquiry might have that result.
MR. LAMBTONsaid he could hardly follow the distinction, but he would remind the hon Member that Subsection (4) of the Bill provided that if in the course of their inquiries the Commissioners received any information as to the existence of a demand for small holdings they should communicate with the council, so that these unfortunate men, even under the Bill as it stood, would have their petitions made public and, according to the hon. Member, be turned out of their cottages by their landlords.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYadmitted that agricultural labourers, as a class, were very suspicious and extremely reluctant to commit themselves by putting their demands on paper, but it was not for the reason stated by the hon. Member for Cirencester. He however wished to draw attention to a point which had, he thought, been overlooked. Hitherto they had considered this matter from the point of view of those who supported small holdings; he reminded the House that there would probably be a certain number of labourers very much opposed to the acquisition of land for small holdings because it would deprive them of the occupation they already had; they would have in consequence to leave their cottages and find work elsewhere, and though they might be compensated under the Bill they might not think the compensation received as adequate. He therefore thought an inquiry of this sort was necessary because it would give the Commissioners some knowledge of those opposed to small holdings and enable them to hold the balance fairly and act in the interest of the bulk of the community. It was desirable in the interest of all parties that there should be some preliminary inquiry, because the great danger of the Bill was that it would stimulate desires and create false demands.
MR. GODFREY BARINGsaid that if the hon. Member for
838
South-East Durham would go with him he could point out to him many landlords who spoke in the most unmeasured terms of the making of small holdings, and it was those gentlemen whom they had to deal with by legislation. The right hon. Member for East Worcestershire had said he was certain there were no villagers so nervous as to think of the results which would follow an agitation for small holdings. The right hon. Gentleman did not display much knowledge of the subject. It was exceedingly dangerous at times for any villagers to take a prominent part. [Cries of "Portsmouth."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite quoted one case where a Liberal landlord had been indiscreet, but how many cases were there where the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite had been more than indiscreet. [Cries of "Name."] It would take him much too long to give the full catalogue. He believed that a local inquiry would not be the best means of ascertaining the real wishes of the villagers. Villagers who wished to obtain small holdings would have to go before the Commissioners and at a local inquiry would be cross-examined as to their financial means, &c. It would be far better for the Commissioners to go round the district and find out in private conversation if there was a desire for small holdings. A local inquiry would enormously add to the complication and the expense of the Act while the villagers present at it would not be able to do themselves justice.
MR. BRIDGEMANsuggested that if the Commissioners were to go round the country conversing with all those who might want small holdings there would need to be two or three hundred of them. It would certainly be difficult to calculate the number that would be required. He did not think the hon. Member for Cirencester quite understood the point of his hon. friend's Amendment. He had used this opportunity to raise the question of bad landlords who would illtreat anyone who allowed his voice to be heard. No doubt there would be some such cases. He also agreed that it was not easy to persuade agricultural labourers to put their name to anything on paper. He pointed out that under the Amendment the five requisitionists for a local inquiry need not be actual applicants for small holdings. The object

839
of it was merely to secure that there should exist a bona fide and serious demand.
MR. WINFREYsaid there were cases where he thought the Commissioners might wisely move without waiting to be approached by five county electors. He would give the House an example of what had occurred within the last fortnight. He was chairman of the Lincolnshire Small Holdings Committee, who had just taken 700 acres of land from the Crown in a district where he very much questioned that there were five voters to move in the matter of small holdings. The moment they took the farm they received applications by post from people of the surrounding villages desirous of getting small holdings. He conceived that it would be the duty of the Commissioners when they knew that land was coming into the open market or otherwise to visit the surrounding district to find out whether small holdings were wanted, instead of waiting to be moved by five county electors. It would be a pity to tie the hands of the Commissioners in such a case as that. He did not see the value of the Amendment, and he thought the hands of the Commissioners should not be unnecessarily tied.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that the hon. Member described what the Bill ought to do, but did not. The whole difficulty was that in the mind of the hon. Member, and in the mind of the Government, they mixed up allotments and small holdings. Allotments must always be in the localities where the men were at work. No such conditions applied to small holdings. Therefore instead of making all these elaborate inquiries, let the Commissioners or the county councils do what the hon. Member had just described—let the supply precede the demand. Let them get 600 or 700 acres of land, or whatever was the quantity required, and divide it into small holdings, with homesteads on them, and they would then have nothing to do but publish the conditions on which they were to be sold. Let them do that, and let them have the holdings and houses all ready for occupation, and they would have twenty applicants, ten of whom would be men brought up on the land, and thoroughly good cultivators and suitable men.
840
What they had to do was to see that there was a colony, so that they should have a little community; that was all they had to do; but the supply must precede the applications. If they had waited for Commissioners and inquiries they would not have seen Catshill, which was the bête noir of hon. Members opposite, because it defeated their arguments. He had received scores and scores of letters from all classes of men who had been brought up on the land, but who were now employed as cabdrivers, caretakers, coachmen, etc., in towns. These men all wanted to get back to the land. Some of then, perhaps, had saved a little money, which they were prepared to invest in a holding, but they did not want to be the tenants of any one. They wanted their own land and homesteads to which they could take their families, where they could work and save money, and which they could hand down to those who came after them.
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is going a very long way from the Amendment.
MR. GEORGE ROBERTSsaid it had struck him as a very interesting feature of the debate that the landlords should evince such a great love for the labourer. For his part he agreed that there might be good landlords as well as bad landlords, but he would respectfully point out that the good landlords had nothing to fear under this Bill. It was not good enough to tell them there were no such persons as bad landlords in existence. Some of them knew that there were landlords who exercised their powers in a very arbitrary fashion. He was reminded of one remark made by the hon. Member for the Rye Division. In conjunction with other Members the hon. Gentleman sadly lamented the migration of agricultural labourers into the towns and presumably into other countries.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going a very long way beyond the Amendment, which simply lays down that application is to be made by five county electors.
MR. GEORGE ROBERTSsaid the Amendment proposed that the incentive must come from within the parish itself.

841
For his part, one of the most attractive features of the Bill was the provision for the work of the Commissioners. He thought they were all agreed there was great national need that the land of the country should be cultivated, and he hoped that the appointment of Commissioners would have the effect of creating a demand for land and that they would not need to wait for the demand first to emanate from the labouring classes. He agreed that it was a great disaster that the agricultural population should be so depleted, but he felt that had the landlords made the lot of the agricultural labourer more attractive, and given him better remuneration, they would not be lamenting to the same degree the migration from the rural districts to the towns. The labourer was reticent and diffident, which was largely due to the fact that he had been kept in a state of subjection. Those who were acquainted with village life knew full well that there was a strong objection on the part of the agricultural labourer to communicating with the powers that be; but if Commissioners made inquiries he thought they would be enabled to find out that the labourers wanted land. He believed that they would be quite willing to take small plots of land and cultivate them. The duty of these Commissioners should be to help to create a desire on the part of the agricultural population to till the soil, which, in his opinion, was essential for the well-being of the community.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid he was afraid there was not much hope of inducing the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, which he ventured to think would really serve no useful purpose in the Bill. As the hon. Member had shown, there was hardly any county in England in which five electors would not be willing to come forward and ask that there should be such an inquiry. That condition being so easily fulfilled, rendered the Amendment useless for the purpose for which it was designed. He suspected that the emphasis should be put on the words "local inquiry." The Amendment would make a local inquiry compulsory in every case, but there must be cases within the experience of hon. Members where it was more desirable that there should be private than public inquiry. It would be wiser that the Commissioners should be left
842
free to get their information in their own way. There could be no earthly object in forcing a public inquiry in every case. The Commissioners would be sensible men with agricultural knowledge, and if they could get information in other ways without holding an inquiry why should they not be allowed to do so? Another argument against the Amendment was that it would insert another cause of delay in the Bill. The danger was that too long a time might elapse between the demand for holdings and the getting of them. They wanted to shorten the process and not to lengthen it. He appealed to the House to reject the Amendment.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down thought the Amendment was not likely to have any effect; if that were so, he failed to see why there should be such extraordinary opposition to it.
MR. LEIF JONES: Because of the delay.
SIR F. BANBURYthought it was more likely to expedite matters than not, because five county electors, if they had anything to do with the land, could ask for an inquiry at once. If, on the other hand, the Commissioners went about until somebody approached them, and until something had been said, the probability was that greater delay would occur. But a little side-light had been thrown on the matter by the hon. Member for Norwich, who said the Commissioners would help to create a desire for small holdings among agricultural labourers. He thought the object of the Bill was to satisfy a great desire already existing among the people to get land, which desire could not be satisfied. But if the desire did not exist what was the use of creating it? Did the hon. Member opposite want the Commissioners to run about trying to induce people to take land? They appeared to be so afraid that the demand for small holdings would be so small that, to quote an elegant phrase used by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, unless the people were well gingered the results of the Bill would not be satisfactory. It had been said that there was a danger of the agricultural labourer being turned out of his cottage. Even when this

843
scheme had been set up the agricultural labourer would be exposed to the same danger, because if he took a holding there would still be the extraordinary hostility of the powers that be. He did not think there was anything in that argument at all. He should support the Amendment of his hon. friend.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suggest that we should now come to a decision upon this point.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 62; Noes, 221. (Division List No. 402.)

AYES.

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Fell, Arthur

Moore, William

Balcarres, Lord

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Fletcher, J. S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gordon, J.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gretton, John

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffs'h.

Cave, George

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

Turnour, Viscount

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

Keswick, William

Valentia, Viscount

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Hicks Beach and Mr. Beckett.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Craik, Sir Henry

Magnus, Sir Philip

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Cleland, J. W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Acland, Francis Dyke

Clough, William

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Clynes, J. R.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Glover, Thomas

Alden, Percy

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gooch, George Peabody

Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

Grant, Corrie

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Cooper, G. J.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

Hall, Frederick

Baker, Joseph. A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cox, Harold

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Cremer, Sir William Randal

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

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Crooks, William

Haworth, Arthur A.

Beauchamp, E.

Crossley, William J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Beck, A. Cecil

Curran, Peter Francis

Hedges, A. Paget

Bell, Richard

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Bellairs, Carlyon

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

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

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Henry, Charles S.

Bertram, Julius

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Higham, John Sharp

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

Duckworth, James

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Horniman, Emslie John

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Black, Arthur W.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Hudson, Walter

Bowerman, C. W.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Hyde, Clarendon

Bramsdon, T. A.

Erskine, David C.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Branch, James

Essex, R. W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Esslemont, George Birnie

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Byles, William Pollard

Everett, R. Lacey

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Fenwick, Charles

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Ferens, T. R.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Kearley, Hudson E.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Ffrench, Peter

Kekewich, Sir George

Chance, Frederick William

Findlay, Alexander

Kelley, George D.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Laidlaw, Robert

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lambert, George

Lamont, Norman

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Snowden, P.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Stanger, H. Y.

Lehmann, R. C.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Paulton, James Mellor

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Steadman, W. C.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Lough, Thomas

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Lupton, Arnold

Philipps, Owen C (Pembroke)

Summerbell, T.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Pollard, Dr.

Sutherland, J. E.

Lynch, H. B.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Thorne, William

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

Radford, G. H.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Ure, Alexander

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Verney, F. W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Rees, J. D.

Vivian, Henry

M'Callum, John M.

Rendall, Athelstan

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

M'Killop, W.

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

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

M'Micking, Major G.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wald, W. Dudley (Southampton

Maddison, Frederick

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wardle, George J.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Marnham, F. J.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Weir, James Galloway

Massie, J.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Rose, Charles Day

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Rowlands, J.

Wiles, Thomas

Montagu, E. S.

Runciman, Walter

Wills, Arthur Walters

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Morrell, Philip

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

Morse, L. L.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Sears, J. E.

Winfrey, R.

Myer, Horatio

Seely, Colonel

Yoxall, James Henry

Napier, T. B.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Nicholls, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Nolan, Joseph

Simon, John Allsebrook

MR. COURTHOPE MR. COURTHOPE moved to amend that part of the clause which provides that the Commissioners shall ascertain the extent to which there is a demand, "either actual or prospective," for small holdings by leaving out the words quoted. The House had just decided that the initiation should come from the Commissioners, and they had now to consider the scope of the inquiry which they desired them to carry out. The Bill would read better if the words "either actual or prospective" were omitted. On the Committee the Solicitor-General said that the words were necessary because it was not sufficient that there should simply be a locally expressed demand: they should find out whether there was a want, a desire, or a need. All those things were included in the simple words "a demand for small holdings." Who could say that in the future there would not be a prospective demand for small holdings? They might come down to Sussex or Kent and say, "Before very long there
846
will be a protectionist Government in power, hops will be protected, and everyone will want small holdings." It ought not to be possible for the Commissioners to base their report upon the dim possibilities of the uncertain future. The words "either actual or prospective" were unnecessary, and he thought it would be dangerous to leave them in the clause. He begged to move.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid that the omission of those words was moved in Committee, but the right hen. Gentleman in charge of the Bill told them there was need for the words, because if once the opportunity was given for considering the prospective demand that demand would soon become an actual demand. But surely the demand for these holdings existed without the insertion of such words as these? Unless a demand was an actual demand it should not be considered at all. No one could possibly tell what the prospective demand was going to be.

847
A great many people thought that they wanted land, but when it came to a concrete case and they were asked if they were prepared to pay for it their opinion very rapidly changed. He would like to know how the Government thought a prospective demand was going to be gauged. They might get a good season when everybody supposed that agriculture was the best thing in the world, but then might come a bad season when nobody would want to take land. They had a curious illustration of this in the Allotments Act. When that Act was passed everyone wanted allotments. But what had happened now? In a vast number of cases the allotments had gone begging. People had taken them for a year or two and then, finding that the land was not fertile and the allotments did not pay, had given them up. He could give them many instances of this nature. They were very clear cases of the way in which a demand might at one time look very promising and at another time be almost nonexistent. If the Commissioners only had to consider the existing demand it would be far more satisfactory than the provisions of the clause. The clause, as it stood, put a duty upon Commissioners to consider prospective demands, and it would almost compel them to create a demand. He differed from hon. Members who said they wished to see a demand created; he did not believe that at present a demand existed in the sense that some Members believed. To create an artificial demand would be a most unfortunate thing, and inflict a great injustice and hardship upon those concerned.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, lines 24 and 25 to leave out the words 'either actual or prospective.'"—(Mr. Courthope.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. HARCOURThoped the House would retain these words because they were of a wide and embracing character, and he believed they would be of great advantage to the Commissioners and villagers concerned. It was desirable that the Commissioners should take a general view of the wishes of the districts to which they went. It
848
was quite true that in Committee he spoke of the prospective demand crystallising into an actual demand. If the hon. Member opposite knew something of chemistry he would know that before a body crystallised it was in solution. He wished to avoid any hard legal definition which might cause difficulty hereafter as to what was and what was not a demand. He wished the Commissioners to take the whole circumstances into con sideration. He was sure that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash was a faithful follower of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division. The right hon. Gentleman said on the last Amendment that the supply of small holdings and allotments should precede the demand; he therefore went further than the clause as drawn at present. It was of great importance that the Commissioners should inquire whether Mr. Smith and Mr. Brown wanted small holdings, and whether they would take them if they could get them.
MR. CHAPLINsaid this matter had been discussed before, but they had never been able to got a definition of what was meant by a prospective demand. The right hon. Gentleman liked the words "either prospective or actual demand" because they were of a wide and embracing character. What was a prospective demand and how was it to be ascertained? He thought the Government were proposing to put a difficult duty on the Commissioners.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid he would give the right hon. Gentleman a definition of a prospective demand. He would suggest that a prospective demand was not very different from a present need. Barefooted children constituted, he thought, a prospective demand for boots. [An HON. MEMBER: They have a present demand.] That depended on whether there were boots to be bought, and means to buy them with. A good healthy thirst would in the eyes of some hon. Members indicate a prospective demand for beer. All manufacturers set themselves to supply a prospective and not an actual demand. That was precisely what the Commissioners would do under this Bill. They would consider all the circumstances of the case, and they would not establish a scheme until they saw that there was a

849
prospect of an actual demand for small holdings.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether the Solicitor-General adopted the definition of a prospective demand which the hon. Member had given. He would have thought that each of the cases instanced by the hon. Member represented a present need. When the Commissioners visited a district they would say: "This is a desirable spot. The land hereabout is suited for small holdings and we do not doubt that applicants for small holdings can be found in the district or imported from elsewhere. We shall establish fifty or sixty small holdings to meet the prospective demand which we think will arise." Did the "prospective demand" cover such speculative possibilities? If so, it was very wide, and he would like the Solicitor-General to give on his legal authority a definition of what a "prospective demand" in law was.
Sir W. ROBSONsaid there was not very much law in the phrase at all. The word "demand" without the qualifying words "actual or prospective" would be very vague, and it would be susceptible of an extremely narrow construction. It might perfectly well be that the Commissioners without the directions contained in the clause might take into account only such demand as had explicitly expressed itself. They might say that there must be certain specified persons making a perfectly explicit demand for small holdings, and that was the only kind of demand which they could take into account. With the words "actual and prospective" in the clause the Commissioners would not merely take into account the demand, which might be, if he might so say, lying in wait, but also the fact that when once the supply was indicated a great many persons who had not expressed a demand would begin to make a demand. They would take that into account in determining their scheme. There might, no doubt, be a demand in several counties, but there was nothing to prevent them making inquiry in different villages round about. The Commissioners might see that there was very little local demand in one place, but that there was a demand elsewhere in the county. For instance, there might be a demand in the neighbourhood of industrial centres on the part of townsmen for small holdings and allotments, and the
850
Commissioners would consider it part of their duty to inquire into that demand, and that demand ought to be reported to the Board for consideration.
MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure had given for adhering to the words of the Bill were, amongst others, that they were wide and embracing, and that he objected to give a legal definition of them. The right hon. Gentlemen had on a previous Amendment pathetically be seeched him not to take him across the border; and he almost trembled in venturing once again to allude to the Scottish Small Holdings Bill. He would refer the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 7, Subsection 3 of that Bill. Scotsmen were a canny race and understood how to deal with facts. The words of that subsection were: "If the Commission is satisfied that there is a demand for small holdings"—that the demand existed. There was nothing about "a prospective demand." The Minister in charge of this Bill evidently knew nothing about that clause in the Scottish Bill. The Minister in charge of the Scottish Bill had no desire whatever that there should be any question of a "prospective demand." Why should the principle adopted in the two Bills be different? They had been discussing the meaning of the words "prospective demand." The hon. Member for the Appleby Division had put it in a most interesting way when he said that when children were barefooted there was a prospective demand for boots. He himself would put it that there was an actual demand for boots. He would say that where a young man and a young woman got married there would be a prospective demand for boots. [Cries of "Oh, oh.]" He would not pursue that illustration further. The next illustration used by the hon. Gentleman was that where any one wanted a glass of beer—
MR. LEIF JONESsaid that he put it that some hon. Gentleman might regard thirst as a prospective demand for beer; he should regard it as a demand for water.
MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that he knew the hon. Gentleman himself was

851
enamoured of water; but he must say that if a man was thirsty there was an actual not a prospective demand for either beer or water. Surely these Commissioners ought to deal with actualities: they should go about the country and ascertain whether there was a demand and deal with facts. Otherwise the authorities would involve themselves in speculation and perhaps in danger. He would take another illustration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer a month ago talked about the value of Consols, which were then standing at 84¼, and said that they had touched bottom and that they would go up. That was a prospective sise, but to-day so far from finding that Consols had gone up they were now quoted at 81¼. Surely, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was liable to err, the Commissioners might be liable to err if they came to the conclusion that there was a prospective demand for small holdings. The Commissioners would make a Report to the Board that there was a prospective demand for small holdings, and schemes would be directed to be made. The local authority might entirely disagree with the Commissioners and with the Board and say that there was no such demand, but the local authorty, according to the machinery of the Bill, would be obliged to go on. An order would be made for the acquisition of land, tenants would be given notice to quit their holdings and then suddenly the Board would turn round, after all this expense had been incurred, and say that a mistake had been made, and there was no actual but only a prospective demand for small holdings. He was not putting an exaggerated case. It would involve the local authorities in a jumble and a mess and perhaps in heavy loss. In toe name of common sense they should content themselves with dealing with facts. Let the Commissioners deal with facts and say yes or no whether there was an actual demand, and not dip into the future. He venture to impress on the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure that he should accommodate this section to the section in the Scottish Bill and strike out the word "prospective."
MR. STANLEY WILSONthought the right hon. Gentleman had given no answer
852
at all to the arguments in favour of the Amendment, and even after the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General the Government had not made out the slightest reason for the retention of these words. The hon. and learned Gentleman told the House that "prospective" was a very vague term. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] He certainly thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman said so. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his verdict. If he declined to do so, why did he refuse the last Amendment? He defied anyone to know whether there was likely to be a "prospective demand" unless a local inquiry were held.
COLONEL KENYON SLANEYsaid that as to "prospective demand" there might be a general idea in a certain neighbourhood that a railway was likely to be run through the district, and based on that possibility a certain number of applications might be made for small holdings. But would the Commissioners be entitled to report that there was a genuine prospective demand for small holdings? Or supposing a new market was opened up in the neighbourhood of a port or some large local development took place which would create in the future a demand for land for small holdings, would that be a prospective demand which the county council ought to provide for? Or if there was an idea in a district that a large measure of tariff reform was likely to come into existence, he could understand that there might be a large demand for allotments. Would the Commissioners be entitled to say that based on such a possibility, if not the certainty in the future, small holdings should be created? He thought that the demand for small holdings ought to be based on existing facts, and that they should not go into the realms of the future. He therefore thought there was a good deal to be said for the Amendment.
MR. VIVIANsaid the Tariff Commission existed, as he understood, to create a supply of labour. The point of this Bill was to create a supply of land for small holdings. He wondered the hon. Gentleman should object to provide for a prospective demand for land for small holdings when they

853
asked for tariff reform to create a prospective demand for labour.
MR. E. GARDNERsaid it would be a cruel thing to keep this power of taking land hanging over the heads of people who were at present cultivating it. These

AYES.

Abraham William (Cork, N. E.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Kenna, Ht. Hon. Reginald

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Killop, W.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Maddison, Frederick

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Glover, Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Alden, Percy

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Markham, Arthur Basil

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Gooch, George Peabody

Marks, G Croydon (Launceston)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Marnham, F. J.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Massie, J.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hall, Frederick

Masterman, C. F. G.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Montagu, E. S.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morrell, Philip

Beauchamp, E.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Morse, L. L.

Beck, A. Cecil

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Bell, Richard

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

Myer, Horatio

Bellairs, Carlyon

Haworth, Arthur A.

Napier, T. B.

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nicholls, George

Bertram, Julius

Hedges, A. Paget

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nolan, Joseph

Black, Arthur W.

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Bowerman, C. W.

Henry, Charles S.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Branch, James

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Holden, E. Hopkinson

O'Donnel, C. J. (Walworth)

Byles, William Pollard

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Paulton, James Mellor

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, (Leek)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hudson, Walter

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

Chance, Frederick William

Hyde, Clarendon

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pollard, Dr.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jardine, Sir J.

Price, C. K. (Edinburgh, Central)

Cleland, J. W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Radford, G. H.

Clough, William

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Clynes, J. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rees, J. D.

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

Kekewich, Sir George

Rendall, Athelstan

Cox, Harold

Kelley, George D.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Laidlaw, Robert

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

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Ridsdale, E. A.

Crooks, William

Lambert, George

Roberts Charles H. (Lincoln)

Crossley, William J.

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Curran, Peter Francis

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

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

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lehmann, R. C.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lever, A Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Duckworth, James

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rowlands, J.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lewis, John Herbert

Runciman, Walter

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lough, Thomas

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Erskine, David C.

Lupton, Arnold

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Essex, R. W.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sears, J. E.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lynch, H. B.

Seely, Colonel

Everett, R. Lacey

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Fenwick, Charles

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Ferens, T. R.

Mackarness, Frederick C.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Ffrench, Peter

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Findlay, Alexander

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Callum, John M.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

people should know exactly how they stand.
Question put.
The House divided—Aves, 216; Noes, 63. (Division List No. 403.)

Snowden, P.

Vivian, Henry

Wiles, Thomas

Stanger, H. Y.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Wilkie, Alexander

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

Walters, John Tudor

Wills, Arthur Walters

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyluph (Chesh.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Steadman, W. C.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wardle, George J.

Winfrey, R.

Summerbell, T.

Waterlow, D. S.

Yoxall, James Henry

Sutherland, J. E.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Weir, James Galloway

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

Thorne, William

White, George (Norfolk)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Ure, Alexander

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Verney, F. W.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

NOES.

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Craik, Sir Henry

Magnus, Sir Philip

Ashley, W. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Aubrey-Fleteher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Du Cros, Harvey

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Balcarres, Lord

Faber, George Denison (York)

Moore, William

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

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

Forster, Henry William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gordon, J.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gretton, John

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Starkey, John R.

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Turnour, Viscount

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

Valentia, Viscount

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

Keswick, William

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

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

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

Courthope and Mr. Hunt.

Mr. HARCOURT Mr. HARCOURT moved an Amendment providing that the Commissioners in ascertaining the demand for small holdings "shall confer with the county councils and" may employ or co-operate with such authorities, associations, and persons as they think best qualified to assist them.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 3, after the word 'purpose,' to insert the words 'shall confer with the county councils and.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
Question proposed, "That those words be their inserted."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether the expression county, councils would include the councils of county boroughs. He would like to allude to the case of a place in his own constituency known as Catshill, where small holdings were being carried out. As soon as the local demand in that district was satisfied there was a demand
856
from people in Birmingham who had been born at Catshill but had come to Birmingham, worked and saved money, and who would like to go back to the land. Which council was intended to work this Bill, and on whose behalf would action be taken? Would the city authority or the county authority take action for the reinstatement of these people on the land, and on which authority would the risk fall? His desire was, and he was sure the House would appreciate it, that these people who came from Catshill should get their small holdings if they were shown to be suitable, and they might through this clause get in them the most excellent class of tenant. Surely if there was any risk or speculation about it their own county councils ought to take the risk and not the county council into whose district they were moving. Would the risk fall on the Birmingham authority in whose district there was this prospective demand or the County Council of Worcester on whom the liability would fall?
Mr. HARCOURT Mr. HARCOURT said that for all the purposes of the Act the council of a county borough was a county council. It was necessary that a city like Birmingham should be able to provide small holdings for its own people beyond its own area, and for that purpose there was a clause put into the Bill permitting them to acquire land outside their own boundaries. Of course the liability would be its own. The words he had put in were to allow the Commissioners to work freely with all and every county council.
Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MORPETH*VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.) moved to leave out the words "employ or" in that part of the clause which provides that, in order to ascertain the demand for small holdings, the Commissioners may employ or co-operate with authorities, associations, and persons. He said that these words might have a most undesirable result if left in the Bill. He and those who thought with him had no objection to the Commissioners cooperating with county councils or with associations, but that they should have a right to employ them left the door open to all sorts of abuses. It was conceivable that there might have been an election in the district fought upon the question of small holdings, and that the party which advocated small holdings had been beaten The Commissioners might come into that district and employ those in favour of small holdings over the heads of the electorate who in the main were against them. Such a possibility clearly showed that the Government had no regard for the wishes of the electorate and did not trust them in the least. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had found fault with the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division because he suggested there might be pickings in the Bill, but in this clause there certainly might arise scandals of that sort, and it was the duty of the House so to legislate as to prevent any such scandal taking place. While the county councils, the representatives of the people, would not be empowered to pay their sub-committees, persons who were not representative of the locality might be paid by the Commissioners. "How would the appointments be made? The Com-
858
missioners must depend on local advice—probably that of the local Member of Parliament. It was already claimed that Members of Parliament should have the right to recommend for the commission of the peace persons who had assisted them in their contests, but here men were to receive money payments. There was the gravest danger that the persons appointed would not be those whom the locality would have selected.
MR. COURTHOPEseconded the Amendment. He thought payment and voluntary cooperation should not be mixed up in this way. If there was a power to employ and pay he was perfectly certain that situations would arise in which persons who otherwise had voluntarily assisted would naturally, when they saw they could get something out of it, stand out and refuse to do anything unless they were paid. It would be better that this clause should be confined to voluntary cooperation with those who were able and willing to give assistance.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, lines 3 and 4, to leave out the word 'employ or.'"—(Viscount Morpeth.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONthought the noble Lord had taken a very highly coloured view of what was possible under the Bill. The Amendment, if accepted, would have the effect of robbing the Commissioners of any power to employ a person who they thought would be able to assist them. Nothing was further from the minds of those who drafted the clause than that it should carry such extraordinary powers as the noble Lord thought it would. He could not accept the Amendment, as he did not think it would be reasonable to deprive the Commissioners of this power.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had confined himself entirely to the employment of persons and had said nothing as to the employment of associations. The hon. and learned Member was aware that there were associations in existence, for assisting people to small holdings, which

859
were now frankly political. Was it comtemplated that it should be possible to employ an association of that kind, that the Government should pay what was practically a subsidy to what had hitherto been a voluntary association acting in harmony with the views of one political party. By employing such an association the Government would be practically making a subscription to the organisation of one Party. The right to employ and pay ought to be confined to persons.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid the right hon. Gentleman opposite had been rather sarcastic with regard to some remarks which he had made as to the danger comprised in such a section as this. He had no desire to cast any reflection on the Commissioners of the Board of Agriculture, but appointments would be made in many centres if the Bill was to be operative, and the Commissioners of the Board of Agriculture could not know what was going on. The appointments made would not be by the Commissioners directly but by sub-Commissioners who occupied an inferior position to the Commissioners. Therefore he asserted that the appointments would be political, and though the payment would be small the appointments would follow the political complexion of the Members of Parliament or the organisation. They were dealing with public money. It was not like the case in which a committee of the county council was appointed, because that committee was not paid. The committee, in this instance, was indirectly appointed from London. Very few knew anything about it, and consequently somebody in a district might be appointed to a position for which he was perhaps not qualified, at any rate in the eyes of those who were politically opposed to the class to which he belonged. The words might not only give rise to a vast expenditure of public money, but open up unnecessary expenditure. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite would try to justify such a feature as this. They had been silent, nearly every one of them, about the objections which had been offered, but their silence was the best admission of the justice of those objections. The guillotine stifled discussion in that House and in the Committee upstairs, but they could not stifle discussion in the country. All these things would have to come out. But he urged, in the case of these
860
expenses, that the greater part of them would fall on the rent which the poor agricultural labourer had to pay; therefore the less they could make those expenses the better, and there was no necessity whatever for them. All his hon. friends opposite bad been voting to pile up the burden of expenses on the backs of the men who would have to pay it in the form of rent. The proposal was another illustrasion of what they had been engaged in doing for some time past—piling up a burden for the poor agricultural labourer to bear.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the expenses of the Agricultural Commissioners would be paid out of the Small Holdings Fund.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that came on the taxes; they could not dispute it. His hon. friend was perfectly right—it was a perfectly unnecessary expense. They were opening the door to an immense amount of expenditure and political demoralisation, and therefore he hoped that the Government would consent to this Amendment.
MR. WINFREYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had read into the words something which they really did not imply. To his mind it would be a great pity if, in trying to focus the demand for small holdings, and to secure suitable land, the Commissioners were not permitted to employ persons to assist them. It had fallen to his own lot the other day to have personal experience in this matter. He had to look over a farm with a view to letting it out for small holdings. It struck him that the land was very suitable for fruit culture, but he dared not on his own initiative declare it to be so. Therefore he called to his assistance a practical man, who came a distance of fifty miles to examine the subsoil. He was advised by him that the soil was suitable for strawberry and raspberry growing. He paid the man a guinea for his day and his expenses. It would be a man of that class, he imagined, whom the Commissioners would employ from time to time to assist them in getting hold not only of the right holdings but also the right class of men to cultivate them. He thought it would be a great pity if the words "may employ" were left out of the

861
Bill, and he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.
MR. CHAPLINsaid he did not think the hon. Member who had just sat down had at all met the objection raised to these words. The argument might have been more appropriate if it had been a question whether the land was suitable for small holdings or not. But the object of this clause was something totally different. What in this case had to be inquired into was the demand there would be for small holdings in any district, and how far that demand could be reasonably satisfied under the existing Act. He did not see that it was necessary for that purpose to employ associations, for instance. There were many associations for the promotion of small holdings existing in the country, and he knew that they entered into their work with great zeal and earnestness, and with the idea, in which they always believed, that it was probably the object of the greatest importance in the present day. He did not think that by employing associations of that kind they were sure to get very reliable information as to the demand that existed in different parts of the country. He thought that it was hardly within the limits of human nature, occupied as they were, that they should not take a rather highly coloured view, he would not put it higher than that of the situation, and with their ardent aspirations for the promotion of the system, he thought it was quite possible they might be likely to give an exceedingly misleading description to the Commissioners. For that reason he thought it desirable to remove the words "may employ" from the clause, and in any case he would move with regard to the word "associations."
Mr. LAMBTONasked whether the this clause the Commissioners might employ county authorities, or the education authority, or the finance committee, or highways board, or any other committee of the county council. He maintained that as the clause stood they might employ any county authority.
Sir W. ROBSONsaid the hon. Member had put a practical question as to the assistance to be given to the Commissioners. Under the very next
862
sub-section it was the duty of the local authorities, county councils, committees, and so forth, to give the Commissioners all the assistance and information in their power.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid that, having heard the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it seemed to him that the question arose why it was necessary to insert the word "authority." If the authorities had to co-operate with the Commissioners, why put it in the Bill? It had no meaning, and it ought to be eliminated. He did not think that anyone on the Government side of the House had in any way answered the argument of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, or had attempted to show that great abuse and evils would not flow from the use of the power to obtain help. It was not only a waste of money, but it seemed to him that it opened the door very widely to a great amount of jobbery and of fictitious work to keep the movement alive merely for the purpose of giving, jobs to these men. All Members of that House knew very well the sort of society which existed merely for the purpose of paying the secretary's salary, and he was afraid that posts might be created, if this power were given, the only advantage of which would accrue to the persons who were paid salaries. The Solicitor-General seemed to imagine that if these words were deleted from the clause it would not be within the competency of the Commissioners to employ anybody in any capacity, not even a cabman or anyone to run errands for them. He was sure that was not the fact, and that it was not necessary to provide by Act of Parliament for the ordinary spheres of employment which such a body as the Commissioners would have to use. Having regard to the fact that this provision might cause great abuse in the rural districts, and also weaken the value of the information, which would be much bettor if voluntarily given, he sincerely supported the Amendment.
MR. GIBBSsaid he heartily associated himself with his hon. friend who had moved the Amendment. He thought that it was most dangerous to offer this employment, and, that it would result in numerous people being sent about. Surely if there was any

863
great desire in the country for small holdings people would not hesitate to come forward and make their applications.
Mr. VERNEYsaid that no one would suggest that a Government Department should waste money in employing anybody who would not be a substantial advantage. If it was suggested that the Commissioners were going to roam about the country employing anybody they liked on all sorts of occasions, and associations besides, that was something which it had not entered into the brain of the wildest opponent of this Bill to imagine. What was meant was that the employment should have reference to one thing only, and that was the inquiry as to what demand there was for small holdings. Surely when these gentlemen were to come under the Board of Agriculture, that Department might be trusted as to their employment. He could quite imagine a small association of a very humble kind, the secretary of which would be a person of great importance in prosecuting such an inquiry as was contemplated, and he could not understand what harm would arise when it was realised that such employment would be "under the direction of the Board of Agriculture."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid it would be undesirable to debar the Commissioners from employing people who had been formed into an association for the purpose of assisting them in this inquiry. It would indicate distrust of the Commissioners, which should be avoided.
Mr. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he had a strong feeling on the subject of this
Amendment, and he did not need any question of authorities or associations to justify him in supporting this proposal. They all desired that this Bill should work with as little difficulty and friction and as much success as possible. If they wished the Bill to be a failure and a source of bitterness and strife, they could not do better than retain the words which it was proposed to omit. Quite apart from these words the practical working of the measure would be attended with much heart-burning, jealousy, and personal difficulties of all kinds in the country districts, not only on the part of those from whom the land was taken, but also of those amongst whom it was going to be divided. He referred to such questions as how was the land to be divided? Who was to have the largest piece? Who was to have the best piece, or the best equipped piece? Personal feelings of bitterness would be engendered, and political questions would arise. All that was inevitable; but if they desired to multiply those evils tenfold they only needed to add to them the possibility of making personal profit by the transactions. A small minority would be able to override the desires of their neighbours, and insist upon small holdings at the expense of their neighbours. If they wanted to make this a perpetual fount of bitterness, they could do so by making it possible for a person not only to override his neighbours, but also to put money in his own pocket at the same time.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 57. (Division List No. 404.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Erskine, David C.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Essex, R. W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rowlands, J.

Evans, Samuel T.

Lupton, Arnold

Runciman, Walter

Everett, R. Lacey

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Fenwick, Charles

Lynch, H. B.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Ffrench, Peter

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

Findlay, Alexander

Macdonald, J. M (Falkirk B'ghs)

Sears, J. E.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Seely, Colonel

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Fullerton, Hugh

MacVengh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

M'Callum, John M.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Glover, Thomas

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Simon, John Allsebrook

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Maddison, Frederick

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Gooch, George Peabody

Mallet, Charles E.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Snowden, P.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Markham, Arthur Basil

Stanger, H. Y.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Hall, Frederick

Marnham, F. J.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Massie, J.

Steadman, W. C.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Molteno, Percy Alport

Summerbell, T.

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

Montagu, E. S.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morrell, Philip

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morse, L. L.

Thorne, William

Hedges, A. Paget

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Myer, Horatio

Ure, Alexander

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W

Napier, T. B.

Verney, F. W.

Henry, Charles S.

Nicholls, George

Vivian, Henry

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nolan, Joseph

Walters, John Tudor

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpton

Horniman, Emslie John

Paulton, James Mellor

Wardle, George J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Waterlow, D. S.

Hudson, Walter

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Weir, James Galloway

Hyde, Clarendon

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

White, George (Norfolk)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pollard, Dr.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Radford, G. H.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wiles, Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wilkie, Alexander

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Wills, Arthur Walters

Kekewich, Sir George

Rees, J. D.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Kelley, George D.

Rendall, Athelstan

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

Laidlaw, Robert

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

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

Winfrey, R.

Lambert, George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

NOES.

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

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

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hills, J. W.

Ashley, W. W.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hornby, Sir William Henry

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Keswick, William

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Du Cros, Harvey

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Fell, Arthur

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Carlile, E. Hildred

Fletcher, J. S.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Cave, George

Forster, Henry William

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Moore, William

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

Gordon, J.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Peace, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

Helmsley, Viscount

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Starkey, John R.

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

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Turnour, Viscount

Viscount Morpeth and Mr. George D. Faber.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Valentia, Viscount

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved to omit "associations" from the bodies whom the Commissioners may employ or co-operate with in ascertaining the demand for small holdings and the extent to which it can be satisfied.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 4, to leave out the word 'associations.'"—(Mr. Chaplin.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'associations' stand part of the Bill."
Sir W. ROBSONsaid he had no doubt that what was contemplated by the draftsmen was that it should be in the power of the Commissioners to co-operate with those associations, and the effect of the Amendment would be to deprive them of that power, which was undesirable.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINhoped the Government would reconsider this point. He did not know what associations the Government had in their minds, but there were a number of associations which were distinctly political organisations, and it should not be open to the Commissioners to employ these associations or to the Government to subsidise associations of a political character. In connection with the work of placing the names of qualified voters on the register, associations and individuals Were allowed to co-operate, and to spend money if they liked, but I public authorities were not allowed to pay to political associations the expenses they incurred in so doing. There was no more reason why they should allow a Government Department to subsidise a political association in this case than in the other. It might be answered that a county association was not a political association. That might be so, but what he did know was that there were allotments associations which were distinctly political organisations. His right hon. friend the Member for the Bordesley Division was the founder of an association, and when he had the misfortune to differ from the Liberal Party on the subject of Home Rule he was turned out of the
868
chairmanship of the association which he had formed. The right hon. Gentleman formed another association, and he himself was the first hon. secretary of it. Both of these associations were of a political character. Would it not be a scandal that either should be subsidised by the Government? These associations had done good work hitherto with the voluntary subscriptions they had been able to get from people interested. Let them continue to do that work, but subscriptions of public money should not be given to political associations under cover that it was payment for the work they did in the spread of small holdings. He thought words could be introduced to make it possible for the Commissioners to co-operate with the associations, while not leaving it in their power to pay them.
MR. MADDISONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had assumed that all these associations were political. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Not at all."] He had admitted that the two allotments associations to which he referred were political. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman of a large organisation which existed merely for the purpose of promoting agriculture. Upon that organisation there were men of all shades of political opinion.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was true, and the co-operation of that body could be secured without any payment. He did not wish to prevent the Government or the Commissioners cooperating with any of these bodies. What he said was that it would be a scandal that they should pay political associations.
MR. MADDISONsaid there was one large body, and there were probably more, which would co-operate helpfully when the Bill came into operation, and which could not by any stretch of imagination be called political He did not wish to make any political capital out of this. He was very glad that the Solicitor-General had not consented to take out the word "associations." There were undoubtedly associations connected with agriculture which

869
could not by any stretch of imagination be called political.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsuggested that in order to carry out what they all desired, namely, that there should be no opportunity for giving a subsidy to any political association, the word "co-operate" should alone be used. He deeply regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have left it open to the Commissioners to pay money to an association.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid he was strongly inclined to support the view expressed by the hon. Member for Burnley. In recent years tenant farmers' associations had been formed, and they had a lot of valuable information concerning the position of agriculture in their districts. He failed to see why the Commissioners should not be in a position, not only to invite all the information these associations could give, but to call them to any inquiry which might be held. These were not rich associations like trade unions; they were dependent on the contributions of their own few members, and occasionally, he was sorry to say, on the patronage of some of the agents of the lauded interest in their particular districts. But still they were trying to do good work for agriculture. He thought the Commissioners should have power to pay the necessary train fares in order to secure the attendance of the representatives of the associations at any inquiries hold for the purpose of getting information. He would say that in some cases not only the train fares should be allowed, but also a day's pay. He thought if the word "employ" were struck out, and only the word "cooperate" left, there might be an opportunity to quibble over the payment of such expenses as he had referred to.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid he would like to re-echo what the hon. Member had said about tenant farmers' associations. The associations in their corporate capacity did not want to be paid. They would gladly co-operate with the representatives of the county councils. He appealed to the Government to introduce some change into the clause in another place, so that there might be no confusion between co-operating with and employing
870
an association. There were many urgent reasons why confusion should not be introduced between co-operating with and employing an association.
MR. EVERETTsaid that the Amendment related not to the employment, but to the associations themselves. In his opinion it was most vital for the successful working of the Act that every encouragement should be given to people who were enthusiastic believers in small holdings, and who thought that a new heaven was to be brought down to a new earth by getting the land into the hands of small men. There were economic difficulties in the way of that, and every moral assistance and enthusiasm would be required behind the Act to make it largely and successfully operative. In his opinion those people in every county who believed in the gospel of small holdings should be encouraged to associate themselves in the work of organisation, and in teaching the people the right lines on which to proceed. On these grounds he thought they must retain the word "associations" in the Bill.
MR. GEORGE FABERsaid he had not the slightest objection to associations, but to their employment for money. The reason why he objected to the Commissioners employing these associations for money was that the Commissioners were not local men, but would move everywhere, north, south, east and west, to ascertain what was the demand for small holdings. In the course of their peregrinations they might employ an association to co-operate with them. But there were many different kinds of associations—political and agricultural—and there was no harm in any of them in themselves; but the point was, was it desirable by this Bill to enable the Commissioners to employ them for money? The Commissioners would be strangers to the locality, and they might in ignorance employ for money an association having a distinct political flavour about it. He wanted the Bill to work; but human beings were human beings, and it was much better to stereotype in an Act of Parliament what might or might not be done. The Commissioners would be as liable to err as anyone else; and if they employed to co-operate with them associations which had a political flavour

871
about them, then "the fat would be in the fire." People would be sure to say that the Commissioners had come down to employ for money associations of such and such a political Party. That was not desirable in the interests of anyone when they wanted the Bill to work peaceably. He thought that "associations" might with propriety have remained in the clause, if the previous words "may employ" had been struck out, but this had not been done.
Mr. LUPTONsaid he rather sympathised with the hon. Member, and was gratified that he objected to employ associations for money. He hoped the hon. Member would pursue the same idea, and let them have the land, of which there was plenty to spare, without the money.
MR. CHAPLINpointed out that there was another clause in the Bill which dealt directly with the promotion by county

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Alden, Percy

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

Holland, Sir William Henry

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hudson, Walter

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Hyde, Clarendon

Beauchamp, E.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Beck, A. Cecil

Essex, R. W.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Bell, Richard

Esslemont, George Birnie

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Evans, Samuel T.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Benn, W. (Tw'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Everett, R. Lacey

Kelley, George D.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fenwick, Charles

Laidlaw, Robert

Bertram, Julius

Ferens, T. R.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'd

Ffrench, Peter

Lamont, Norman

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Findlay, Alexander

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Black, Arthur W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Bowerman, C. W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringt'n

Brace, William

Glover, Thomas

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Bramsdon, T. A.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Levy, Sir Maurice

Branch, James

Gooch, George Peabody

Lewis, John Herbert

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Byles, William Pollard

Hall, Frederick

Lough, Thomas

Cheetham, John Frederick

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Lupton, Arnold

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cleland, J. W.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Lynch, H. B.

Clough, William

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Clynes, J. R.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

M'Callum, John M.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grn'st'd

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Maddison, Frederick

Cox, Harold

Hazleton, Richard

Mallet, Charles E.

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Hedges, A. Paget

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Crooks, William

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Crossley, William J.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Curran, Peter Francis

Henry, Charles S.

Marnham, F. J.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Higham, John Sharp

Massie, J.

councils of societies whose object was to further the system of small holdings. He thought their object would be equally gained if "associations" were omitted from the present clause. Clause 39 set forth that "a county council may promote the formation of and assist cooperative societies and credit banks, or societies having for their object, or one of their objects, the furtherance of the provision and successful cultivation of small holdings or allotments." He thought that when they were considering the general question as to the extent to which there was a legitimate demand for small holdings, if they were to ask for information from associations for the promotion of small holdings, that would not unnaturally lead to very highly coloured and misleading representations being made to the Commissioners.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 195; Noes, 44. (Division List No. 405.)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Ure, Alexander

Micklem, Nathaniel

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Verney, F. W.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

Vivian, Henry

Montagu, E. S.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Montgomery, H. G.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Walters, John Tudor

Morse, L. L.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rowlands, J.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Myer, Moratio

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpton

Napier, T. B.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wardle, George J.

Nicholls, George

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Waterlow, D. S.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Sears, J. E.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Norton, Capt, Cecil William

Seely, Colonel

Weir, James Galloway

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sherwell, Arthur James

White, George (Norfolk)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Shipman, Dr. John G.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wiles, Thomas

Pollard, Dr.

Snowden, P.

Wilkie, Alexander

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

Stanger, H. Y.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Radford, G. H.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

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

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Steadman, W. C.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Winfrey, R.

Rees, J. D.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Rendall, Athelstan

Summerbell, T.

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

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Thorne, William

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Fletcher, J. S.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Boyle, Sir Edward

Forster, Henry William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bridgman, W. Clive

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cave, George

Gordon, J.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Helmsley, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

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

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hunt, Rowland

Turnour, Viscount

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Magnus, Sir Philip

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Faber, George Denison (York)

Middlemore, John Thogmorton

Viscount Valentia.

MR. LANE-FOX MR. LANE-FOX moved to amend Clause 2 by inserting at page 2, line 21, after "urban," the words "or rural." He merely wished to move this as a protest, and for the purpose of contending that rural councils were quite as capable of receiving information and assisting in this work as any urban district council. He knew that it had been the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite to make out that the work of the rural councils had been retrograde and of very small value, and he quite admitted that some of the evidence which came before the Committee which sat last year went to establish that, and that in consequence the recommendation taking away the power from the rural councils was passed. He, however, was one of the
874
Members who differed from that recommendation; it seemed to him that the rural councils were a valuable asset. Later on in the Bill there was a proposal to take away power from the rural councils and transfer it to the urban district councils. He could not discuss that now, from the point of view of order, but they might not reach that provision under the peculiar arrangements of the Government in regard to business, and the debate of it might be shut out by the guillotine. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that it was worth his while to secure the co-operation of all the elected bodies in the country, and he thought he would do far better under the rural district councils than under the urban district councils,

875
especially if he enlisted the sympathies of the farmer class on the first-named authorities.
MR. BRIDGEMANseconded the Amendment, which, he said, could not do any harm and would probably do a great deal of good. He objected to this invidious distinction being drawn between the higher and the lower bodies. If the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment he hoped he would give some good reason for not doing so.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 21, after the word 'urban,' to insert the words 'or rural.'"—(Mr. Lane-Fox).
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HARCOURTsaid he had attempted to make it quite clear to the House why the rural district councils must be omitted from the Bill. The Commissioners acquired information, and as under the Bill the rural district councils were deprived of their powers it would be useless to send that information to them. The reason why the rural district council had been deprived of its small holdings powers was that it had been unable or unwilling to exercise them to any considerable extent. During the period that rural councils had established small holdings to the extent of 243 acres, the parish councils had provided 15,000 acres. It was therefore desirable that this power should be removed from; the rural councils.
MR. HICKS BEACHthought the Amendment should not be proposed at this particular point, but considered that the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat unfair to the rural district councils. He had quoted some figures, but appeared to forget that the rural district councils had not been provided with the powers of compulsion. Moreover, he had not done full justice to the work which the rural district councils had done either through their clerks or themselves. They had been instrumental in inducing landlords to provide allotments in a large number of cases of which no record was kept. He did not think the light hon. Gentleman, therefore, was entitled to
876
throw any aspersions upon the rural district councils, and he wished to enter a protest against the statements which had been made.
MR. LANE-FOX MR. LANE-FOX said he did not wish to delay the House, but he had raised this point at this stage because they might not be able to discuss it later on He wished to say, however, that the aspersions which the right hon. Gentleman had passed upon rural district councils were entirely unfounded.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MORPETH*VISCOUNT MORPETH moved to substitute for the first subsection of Clause 3 a new subsection providing that when the Board state, or the county council are of opinion, that it is desirable that a scheme shall be made, the county council may prepare one or more draft schemes for the provision of small holdings in their county. The Amendment raised what he thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit was a vital point. The effect of it was to give the county council a freer hand by not requiring them (as the Bill proposed) to have regard to the proposals of the Commissioners in framing schemes, and provide that there should be no power to override the council and set up over them an authority which was non-elective. His contention was that if the right bon. Gentleman adopted the Amendment and gave the county councils real power to obtain small holdings and allotments he would obtain better results than by, in the first instance, trying to force them and then having recourse to a central authority. Speaking on a previous Amendment he had pointed out that there was a great deal of lip service about the local self-government of this country which was not carried out in actual practice. The county council under his proposal would be in the position of having the chief voice in the question of whether or not small holdings were to be set up in their area, whereas as the Bill now stood it was not administered by means of local self-government, the hand which worked the machine being that of the central authority. Anybody who had the slightest acquaintance with local government could detail many instances of the interference which took place with the decisions of the local

877
authorities by the central authorities. There was no point too small for interference on the part of the central authorities, and local government, as now understood, appeared to be giving power to local authorities with one hand and with the other taking it away and handing it over to the central authorities. The right hon. Gentleman proposed in the Bill to give the county councils the power of preparing schemes, but he evidently mistrusted the county councils and thought it desirable to give the chief power to the central authority. If this power had been a concurrent power there might have been something to be said for it. The right hon. Gentleman having ostensibly given the control to the local authority had given power to the Commissioners acting under the Board of Agriculture to override the county councils and upon their own motion to say, "You shall do this, and if you do not we will do it, and possibly at your expense." Owing to the unfortunate position in which the House was placed they were debarred from discussing the financial question and could only refer to it. But if the right hon. Gentleman said in the minutes he proposed to issue that when the Commissioners acting after the default of the county council made a failure, they should pay the whole of the expenses of the experiment, which the ratepayers had already told them would not succeed, that would alleviate the position to some extent. He therefore urged the Minister in charge of the Bill to check any attempt to charge those who warned the central authority that they were making a mistake and whose warning was disregarded. If the whole of the cost of such an experiment was levied on the ratepayers it would give rise to such a spirit of discontent that the Bill would not come into operation in the country districts for many years. To attempt to coerce the authority when their opinion did not square with that of the Government could only lead to disappointment. Such a power was tried under the old School Board Act, but it was dropped under the Act of 1902. It was very singular that all attempts to whittle away the power of local authorities should come from the Government Front Bench. He disagreed with the argument that this was analogous to the working of the Act dealing with defaulting education authorities.
878
In that case the defaulting education authorities had broken the law. In this case there was no question of violating a statute, it was merely a question of whether in the opinion of the local authority small holdings would be desirable in their locality and whether the the demand for small holdings could be met without loss to the ratepayers. Although he did not dare to hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, they were bound to protest against the adoption of a principle which had been tried in the past and found to be unworkable and contrary to the principles of good self-government, and to warn the right hon. Gentleman that he was not adopting the right course to obtain the object he had in view. He begged to move.
MR. HICKS BEACH, in seconding the Amendment, said he looked upon this as the second coercive step in the Bill. He had always understood the maxim of the Liberal Party to be "Trust the people." When the county councils and parish councils were first started everybody was lead to believe that the respective county councils represented the true wishes of the people. The right hon. Gentleman, when introducing the Bill, said there was no better landlords than the county councils, because they were the most popularly elected bodies in the county, and were the direct representatives of the people. That being so, why not trust them; but the Government, instead of trusting them, put this power in the measure to enable the Commissioners to coerce the county councils when their opinion did not coincide with that of the Board of Agriculture. The Commissioners were to go about the country and inquire as to the demand for small holdings and report to the Board of Agriculture. That report would be sent down to the county council, and in this section it was laid down that it was the duty of the county council to draft the scheme. If the Government trusted the county council, and the county council were to carry this out, the initiative ought to be left with them to see if there was a demand for small holdings. They ought to frame their own report and provide their own scheme, and only when they failed to produce a scheme ought the Board of Agriculture to step in. If it was neces-

879
sary for the Board of Agriculture to step in and usurp the duties of the county council, the Commissioners ought to carry out their scheme out of the Imperial funds and not out of the rates. He therefore supported the Amendment of his noble friend, and trusted the Government would see their way to accept it.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 23, to leave out Sub-section (1) of Clause 3, and insert the words—'(1) When the Board state or the county council are of opinion that it is desirable that a scheme shall be made, the county council may prepare one or more draft schemes for the provision of small holdings in their county.'"—(Viscount Morpeth.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'after,' in page 2, line 23, stand part of the Bill."
MR. HARCOURTsaid the noble Lord had moved an Amendment which omitted altogether from the Bill the duty imposed on the county council and would leave their action purely optional. The omission of the duty from the Bill would carry with it the omission of any action in default. This was a vital point in the Bill. What he desired was to get the work done where it was desirable and necessary. The noble Lord had spoken of over-bearing the county council by superior force, and of coercing the county council. The Government had done nothing of the sort. They had merely provided an alternative body to act where the county council declined. As he had already said on the introduction of the Bill, where the Board acted in default of the county council, and where it was proved the Board was wrong and the county council right, it was in the highest degree improbable that the expenditure would be charged on the rates; but there might be duties entailed on the central authority by default of the county councils. The noble Lord had said there had been a great deal of lip-service rendered to local self-government On these debates, but he believed the result of the Bill would be to render great and real service to the county councils. He hoped that the effect of the Bill would be to democratise the county councils and make them really representative. He was surprised that it should be said that his action on the Bill was designed
880
to "put up the backs" of the county councils. The noble Lord was a member of the County Councils Association, and would admit that he had endeavoured to meet that body by making a practical concession to them, though not exactly in the form they wanted it; but they were satisfied with the considerable concession which by leave of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he had been able to make that day, viz., the payment by the Treasury of half of any loss which might be entailed upon county councils in acting on their own account. He could not say that he had deliberately, or intentionally, or even innocently "put up the backs" of the county councils against this scheme. He had been desirous throughout of consulting the county councils, and he wished to get the most support he could from the best representative body they had in the country in order that they might have local control and management of these matters. It was only for what he believed would be rare cases that he had provided this machinery.
Mr. BRIDGEMANsaid he agreed with part of what the right hon. Gentleman had said, that there should be power for the Commissioners to proceed in some other way if the county council refused to act or do their duty. If the right hon. Gentleman would frankly and fairly meet them with the promise that, where the central authority acted instead of the county council, and it turned out that they incurred a loss, the Treasury should pay that loss, then he would not vote for the Amendment, but as the right hon. Gentleman did not see fit to take what seemed to him to be the only fair course, he would support his noble friend's proposal.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid the right hon. Gentleman, he thought nor intentionally, had misrepresented the argument of his noble friend in moving the Amendment. His noble friend had not said that the right hon. Gentleman had "put up the backs" of the county councils. Everyone would admit that the right hon. Gentleman in the discussions on the Bill had been most anxious to meet them, and that he had done his best to meet the objections of the representatives of county councils. But nevertheless the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would have the effect

881
of "putting up the backs" of the county Councils, and there he agreed with his noble friend. The right hon. Gentleman did not like the word "coercion," but he did not see how the operation could be otherwise described. As long as this position between the county councils and the central authority was retained there would be a tendency in individual cases to "put up their backs." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Everett, R. Lacey

Lyell, Charles Henry

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Fenwick, Charles

Lynch, H. B.

Alden, Percy

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Ffrench, Peter

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

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Findlay, Alexander

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Callum, John M.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Glover, Thomas

M'Killop, W.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Micking, Major G.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Gooch, George Peabody

Maddison, Frederick

Beauchamp, E.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mallet, Charles E.

Beck, A. Cecil

Hall, Frederick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Bell, Richard

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Markham, Arthur Basil

Bellairs, Carlyon

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Marnham, F. J.

Berridge, T. H. D.

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

Massie, J.

Bertram, Julius

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Masterman, C. F. G.

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

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

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Black, Arthur W.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Bowerman, C. W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Montagu, E. S.

Brace, William

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Montgomery, H. G.

Bramsdon, T. A.

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

Morse, L. L.

Branch, James

Henry, Charles S.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Higham, John Sharp

Myer, Horatio

Byles, William Pollard

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Napier, T. B.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Nicholls, George

Cheetham, John Frederick

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Nolan, Joseph

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Horniman, Emslie John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cleland, J. W.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Clough, William

Hudson, Walter

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Clynes, J. R.

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Kelly, James (Rosecommon, N.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jardine, Sir J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

Cox, Harold

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pollard, Dr.

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

Crooks, William

Kekewich, Sir George

Radford, G. H

Crossley, William J.

Kelley, George D.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Laidlaw, Robert

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Rees, J. D.

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

Lambert, George

Rendall, Athelstan

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lamont, Norman

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Erskine, David C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, Sir (Scott Bradf'rd

Essex, R. W.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lough, Thomas

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Evans, Samuel T.

Lupton, Arnold

Rogers, F. E. Newman

eliminate as far as he could, even at that late stage, any question of the coercion of elective bodies, because he was perfectly certain that on the attitude which he adopted with regarded to those bodies depended the success of the Bill. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 208; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 406.)

Rowlands, J.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Waterlow, D. S.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Weir, James Galloway

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Summerbell, T.

White, George (Norfolk)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

Sutherland, J. E.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Sears, J. E.

Tayor, Austen (East Toxteth)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Seely, Colonel

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilkie, Alexander

Sherwell, Arthur James

Thorne, William

Wills, Arthur Walters

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Ure, Alexander

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

Simon, John Allsebrook

Verney, F. W.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Vivian, Henry

Winfrey, R.

Snowden, P.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Stanger, H. Y.

Walters, John Tudor

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

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Steadman, W. C.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

NOES.

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Ashley, W. W.

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Nicholson, W. M. G. (Petersfield)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fletcher, J. S.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Forster, Henry William

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gardner, Ernest (Berks., East)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gordon, J.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Castlereagh, Viscount

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Starkey, John R.

Cave, George

Helmsley, Viscount

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Thomson, W Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

Hills, J. W.

Valentia, Viscount

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hunt, Rowland

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Courthope, G. Loyd

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

Hicks Beach and Mr. Lane-Fox.

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Magnus, Sir Philip

MR. CAVEpointed out that the clause gave the Board power to make such modifications in the report of the Commissioners as they thought desirable, and moved to substitute "observations" for "modifications." He thought the Board ought not to be allowed to alter the report before sending it on to the county council, but they might make observations upon it.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 27, to leave out the word 'modifications,' and to insert the word 'observations.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'modifications' stand part of the clause."
Mr. HARCOURTsaid it was very desirable in many ways for the Board to have power to modify the report. He would be willing to accept after "modifications" the words "or observations," if that would content the hon. Member.
MR. CAVEexpressed his willingness to accede to this alteration.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that surely the Board ought not to send to the county council as the Commissioners' report anything that was not their report, and perhaps to foist upon the Commissioners opinions which were not theirs.
Mr. HARCOURTreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had altered several clauses on this point at the request of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When?
Mr. HARCOURT: On the Committee. There he had altered the tenor of several clauses. The clause was left in the form in which it stood because it was considered that if the Commissioners' report contained any observations which might be true in themselves but offensive to the county council the Board should have power to modify it.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthanked the right hon. Gentleman, and

885
said he considered that his explanation was quite satisfactory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 27, after the word 'modifications,' to insert the words 'or observations.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 30, to leave out the words from 'aforesaid' to the end of the subsection."—(Mr. George Faber.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
Mr. HARCOURTsaid that even if these words were surplusage he did not think they could do any harm, and he would prefer to retain them.
Mr. GEORGE FABER Mr. GEORGE FABER said that although he could hardly accept the reason given for retaining the words as satisfactory he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN Mr. BRIDGEMAN moved to leave out the words "if any" from the portion of the clause which provides that in preparing draft schemes the council shall have regard to the proposals "(if any)" of the Commissioners indicated in the Report. Those words were not only surplusage, but they were insulting to the intelligence of the Commissioners and the Board.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 31, to leave out the words 'if any.'"—(Mr. Bridgeman.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. HARCOURTthought the words might well remain. He could conceive of circumstances under which no definite proposal was likely to be made in the report. This was not a question of the details of a scheme; there might be cases in which county councils were per-
886
fectly willing to act if they had a free hand, and in which they did not wish to have details prescribed to them.
Mr. BRIDGEMANasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LANE-FOX MR. LANE-FOX moved to leave out Subsection (2). He protested against the procedure proposed in the subsection for over-riding the county council. He was himself a member of a county council with the majority of which he sometimes could not agree, but at the same time he did wish that those who represented the voice of the people who sent them there should be over-ridden by any irresponsible body.
Viscount HELMSLEYseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 33, to leave out Subsection (2)."—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
Question proposed, "That the words of the subsection to the word 'to' in line 33 stand part of the Bill."
Sir. W. ROBSONsaid that this subsection referred to a point which had been very much discussed, namely, the alternative action which might be taken by the Board where a council did not go on with seeking to provide small holdings. As the point had already been dealt with he would not repeat the arguments in favour of the subsection. The Government regarded it as providing alternative action. There was a great difference between alternative action and coercion. Under coercion they compelled a body to do that which they did not desire to do, but under the alternative action they were not compelled to do anything. The Board did it themselves and made the county council pay.
MR. CHAPLINsaid that it was perfectly true that there was a difference between alternative action and coercion, but the hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that the whole of the scheme contained in the first five clauses of the Bill rested on the coercion which sooner or later

887
he intended to apply to the county councils. That was a principle to which he and his friends were totally opposed. In the case of a body like the county council, elected on the widest possible suffrage, they thought it was totally wrong that any Government Department should over-ride them and set their

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Ferens, T. R.

M'Callum, John M.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Killop, W.

Alden, Percy

Ffench, Peter

M' Micking, Major G.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Findlay, Alexander

Maddison, Frederick

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mallet, Charles E.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Fullerton, Hugh

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Glover, Thomas

Markham, Arthur Basil

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Gooch, George Peabody

Marnham, F. J.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Grant, Corrie

Massie, J.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Beauchamp, E.

Hall, Frederick

Micklem, Nathaniel

Beck, A. Cecil

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Molteno, Percy Alport

Bell, Richard

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Bellairs, Carlyon

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Montagu, E. S.

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

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

Montgomery, H. G.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morse, L. L.

Bertram, Julius

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

Morton, Alhpeus Cleophas

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Myer, Horatio

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Napier, T. B.

Black, Arthur W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Nicholls, George

Bowerman, C. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Brace, William

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

Nolan, Joseph

Bramsdon, T. A.

Henry, Charles S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Branch, James

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Byles, William Pollard

Holden, E. Hopkinson

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Chance, Frederick William

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Hudson, Walter

Pollard, Dr.

Cleland, J. W.

Hyde, Clarendon

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Clough, William

Jardine, Sir J.

Radford, G. H.

Clynes, J. R.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

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

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rees, J. D.

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

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rendall, Athelstan

Cox, Harold

Kekewich, Sir George

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Kelley, George D.

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

Crooks, William

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Crossley, William J.

Laidlaw, Robert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Curran, Peter Francis

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lambert, George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

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

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Dobson, Thomas W.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Duncan, C. I (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Rowlands, J.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Lough, Thomas

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Erskine, David C.

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Essex, R. W.

Lynch, H. B.

Sears, J. E.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Seddon, J.

Evans, Samuel T.

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

Seely, Colonel

Everett, R. Lacey

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Sherwell, Arthur James

wishes at naught by compelling them to pay for a project of which they entirely disapproved.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 54. (Division List No. 407.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Weir, James Galloway

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

White, George (Norfolk)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Thorne, William

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Snowden, P.

Ure, Alexander

Wilkie, Alexander

Stanger, H. Y.

Verney, F. W.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

Vivian, Henry

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

Steadman, W. C.

Walters, John Tudor

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Winfrey, R.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

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

Summerbell, T.

Waterlow, D. S.

Sutherland, J. E.

Wedgwood, Josiah C

NOES.

Acland, Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir A lex. F.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Magnus, Sir Philip

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Craik, Sir Henry

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Ashley, W. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fletcher, J. S.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Ronldshay, Earl of

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gordon, J.

Starkey John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gretton, John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cave, George

Helmsley, Viscount

Turnour, Viscount

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Valentia, Viscount

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

Hornby, Sir William Herny

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hunt, Rowland

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

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

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

Lane-Fox and Mr. Beckett.

Collings, Rt. Hn. J (Birmingham)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words after considering the report and such representations as aforesaid, as respects any county.'"—(Mr. H. Chaplin.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. HARCOURTsaid that this was merely a verbal Amendment to which he had no objection.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR said he hoped that this Amendment would be accepted without discussion. He made this appeal to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House because there was an Amendment of great importance which ought to have received discussion, but which, owing to circumstances of which they were all aware, could not be discussed at all at present. He thought that they should leave without much debate other questions which were not of first-class importance.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 3, line 1, to leave out the word 'amount,' and insert the word 'quantity.'"
"In page 3, line 7, to leave out the word 'amount,' and insert the word 'quantity.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 30, after the word 'and' to insert the words 'may in any case.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Mr. HARCOURTsaid that he proposed the insertion of these words in fulfilment of a promise made in Committee in order that the Board might hold an inquiry even if the county council did not ask for it.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR, in moving to omit Clause 5, said that the House would remember that at an earlier

891
stage of the discussion that evening there was a debate upon the financial relations which might exist between the Board of Agriculture on the one side, and the county councils on the other, in relation to the creation of small holdings. Various points of great importance were raised before Mr. Speaker, who ruled that the Amendment was not one which came within the rule governing the procedure on the Report stage. He need not say that that was a ruling which had a most serious bearing on the debate, and it would no doubt be followed by rulings of similar tenor which would prevent the whole House, on the only occasion on which the details of a measure came before the whole House, from dealing with the matter at all. That was a most serious condition of affairs, especially considered in relation to the fact that questions of social reform would during this Parliament largely occupy the attention of the House of Commons. All questions of social reform must touch closely the relations of Imperial and local finance, and if such questions were really to be excluded from debate on the only occasion on which the House as a whole could discuss the details of a Bill, it was quite manifest that unintentionally and without any sinister design the new rules curtailed the liberty of hon. Members on both sides to a degree which was really of the most vital and serious import to those who desired to see the House have some control over its legislation. The Minister in charge of the Bill made a statement which could only be made by leave, and the substantial difference between the Government and a large section of opinion on both sides was this—Were they or were they not so to frame this Bill that its provisions were to be carried out over the head of the county councils, but at the expense of the ratepayers? If the Bill ceased to work, was the policy of creating small holdings to come to an end? He hoped not. But was there any way of avoiding that result except to say that where the Board of Agriculture, acting under the direct control of the Government, wished to carry out the creation of small holdings, and did not find a harmonious co-partner in that effort in the county council in whose district the land was situated, and the Board wished to overrule the county council, the only way to do it was at the
892
cost of the general community? It was not for him to discuss that policy at the present moment, but he asked, could the Government, give the House an opportunity to discuss the point? The House was precluded by Mr. Speaker's ruling and by the traditions of the House from laying down the rule that the Treasury must do what in the Bill it might do. The Government should provide a chance of discussing what was the central problem of this agricultural question, for no point which had been raised in connection with the Bill was comparable in importance with the question now being discussed. He urged the Government, therefore, to consent to re-commit the Bill for the purpose of discussing this special question. They could not discuss it at that stage owing to their rules, and there was only one way in which they could debate it, and that was by the Government consenting to re-commit the Bill before their discussions upon it came to an end, and he earnestly pressed that policy upon them after the guillotine Resolutions had been carried out. It would not involve any waste of time if on Friday next the Government consented to re-commit the Bill. The Third Reading would have to take place under the guillotine rule at five o'clock, and therefore not by a single quarter of an hour would the proceedings on the Bill be prolonged if the Government made a favourable response to the appeal which he was then making. He thought they ought to make that favourable response. It was not in order for him to discuss the merits of the proposal, but it was in order for him, he thought, to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to give them, at length, his view of the present financial position under it and to say if he received with any favour the proposal that he should on Friday next re-commit the Bill for the purpose of meeting the views which were expressed in the Committee upstairs but which had never been before the House for five minutes. In order that the right hon. Gentleman might make a statement on the matter he begged to move to omit Clause 5.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 1, to leave out Clause 5."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'on' in page 4, line 1, stand part of the Bill."
MR. HARCOURTsaid that this point was not a new one and had been prominent in their debates for many years. The matter was referred to the Grand Committees under their former rules, but of course it was obvious that certain proposals which had been suggested that afternoon which would impose fresh charges or rates would be beyond the scope of the Resolutions of the House regulating either the Committee or the Report stages. What the right hon. Gentleman specially desired was that he should describe the financial proposals of the Bill and the proposals which the Government had allowed him to make in respect of them. He could not assent to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal that they should recommit the Bill, but it would he open to the right hon. Gentleman to take a division later which would probably meet his views. The discussion on Clause 5 as it came from upstairs arose out of a concession made by himself. Subsection (3) was not in the Bill originally. It was introduced to make clear what he had always intended—that where the Board were acting in: default of a county council, the Board should have the power not to demand the repayment of losses. Then an Amendment was carried against the Government asserting the power of the Board to pay the losses incurred even by a county council acting on its own initiative, and he had accepted that decision of the Committee. A Treasury Minute, as he had stated that afternoon to a deputation of the County Councils Association, would be issued giving a general and detailed indication to the county councils of the lines on which the Treasury were prepared to act where a loss had been incurred by a county council acting on its own behalf. From the information which he had received, he was sure that this considerable concession would give great satisfaction to the representatives of the county councils.
SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid that the question now seemed to be merely one of drafting, and he thought the proposal thrown out for the consideration of the Government was an eminently reasonable one as it would not involve any extra expenditure of time. The Leader of the Opposition had said he would forego certain extra time for the discussion of other subjects in order
894
to allow the Bill to be recommitted and Clause 5 drafted in a proper form taking it in conjunction with the Treasury Minute. At present the Bill was drafted in a very ambiguous form. It suggested that sums should be granted by the Treasury, and then that those sums should be refunded by the county council. Anyone who dealt with this clause from the point of view of the county councils would find themselves in great difficulty and confusion. He hoped that his right hon. friend would allow She Bill to be recommitted and redrafted in the spirit of the Minute, which he said was to be issued by the Treasury, so that the clause might not conflict with the Minute. It would be very much better from the drafting point of view and would save a great deal of confusion which might otherwise arise.
MR. COURTHOPEalso joined in the appeal that the right hon. Gentleman Would allow the Bill to be recommitted for the purpose of dealing with this matter. It would be quite impossible for the county councils to deal with the question satisfactorily unless that were done. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the question arose because he himself inserted Subsection (3), but that statement was not quite correct, because that subsection as it at present stood was due not entirely but in part, and in a very important part, to his hon. friend the Member for Kingston. It was moved in Committee, and carried against the Government.
MR. HARCOURT: I said so.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to say so, but at any rate the result of the proceedings was that Subsection (3) was introduced in its present form, and that it was quite impossible to work Clause 5 as it stood; it was absolutely essential that it should be amended in some reasonable manner, so that it might be possible for the county councils to administer the Act as the House would wish them to administer it.
MR. ADKINSsaid that as one of the members of the deputation from the County Councils, he might say that they appreciated the substantial concessions which had been

895
made by the right hon. Gentleman during the two discussions they had had. He was bound to say in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman that the Treasury Minutes mentioned by him were substantially in accord with the resolution passed by the County Council Association with only one dissentient. While expressing their view that they would be glad to get further concessions, they recognised that the pledge to all county councils that, if they obtained certificates from the Board of Agriculture, half any loss incurred would be met by the Treasury was a fair compromise. He thought the House should be satisfied with the assurance already received, and that the words of the First Commissioner should be interpreted as a pledge that he intended to carry out the suggestions made. Those who were prepared to acquiesce in the Treasury Minute did so because they knew they could trust those responsible.
MR. CAVEsaid they entirely trusted the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman that a Minute would be issued dealing with cases in which a county council had carried out a scheme, but he was rather anxious about the position of a county council which had, as the right hon. Gentleman would say, "defaulted," and had thereupon had a scheme carried out by the Commissioners. As the clause stood, the whole expense incurred by the Commissioners in such a case would have to be repaid by the county council to the Commissioners, and it was not clearly stated that the board might remit a part of such expense. He thought that the clause should be modified so as to make the county council liable only for such expense as the board certified "to be properly payable by the county council." Further, if a county council refused to carry out a scheme because they expected that it would entail a loss and the Commissioners stepped in and carried it out, and if loss did occur, it was, as the clause stood, entirely within the discretion of the Board whether they allowed or repaid a farthing to the county council. He thought that in such a case the Board should be bound to allow or make good the loss.
Mr. HARCOURTsaid he was not prepared to make Subsection (3) manda-
896
tory, because he thought the House might well be satisfied to leave the matter to the discretion of the Board and the Treasury. He had always held that under such circumstances as the hon. and learned Gentleman had just outlined it was impossible to imagine that the cost would be charged on or recovered from the county council by the Board and the Treasury. He would be prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston to insert after "scheme" the words "and to be properly payable by the County Council."
MR. WEDGWOODsaid he profoundly regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to allow an Amendment carried against the Government in Committee to remain part of the Bill. The Amendment, carried by twenty-two to twenty-one in Committee, enabled the Board of Agriculture, when they could get the assent of the Treasury, to transfer any loss which might arise under the Act from the ratepayers of the county to the taxpayers. On the broad ground that they ought not to transfer a charge from the ratepayers to the taxpayers he regretted that the Government were accepting the Amendment. If the charge was taken off the county ratepayers and transferred to the taxpayers, it meant that it was taken off the shoulders of the landowners and transferred to the shoulders of the working classes throughout the country. It had been a matter of debate in the House for many years as to who paid the rates in the country. Liberal Members, when sitting on the other side, maintained that the rates were paid by, and incident on, the landlords, although paid by the tenants in the first instance. He remembered ten years ago indignant protests being made by Liberal Members then in the House against grants by means of gold paid by the Exchequer for relief of the local rates, and now this was another case of transferring, as the Conservatives did when they were in power, charges which naturally and rightly fell on the ratepayers in country districts to the shoulders of the taxpayers. As a Liberal, when in power as in Opposition—and there were many Ministerialists in agreement with him—he protested against a Liberal Government

897
transferring a charge which had fallen on the local rates and the landlords to the taxpayers.
MR. CHAPLINsaid he could not help remarking what muse be obvious to everyone, what a commentary that discussion was upon the present system under which they prosecuted their business. Here they were engaged in discussing a subject in which both sides of the House were deeply interested, yet they had to deal with it under the pressure of the few minutes left to them before the guillotine was applied. He did not propose to dwell upon that; he rose to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman in all the circumstances would reconsider his refusal to agree to the recommittal of the Bill. They all appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's readiness to make the Treasury Minutes on this subject, which, however, as he understood him, he might possibly be prevented from submitting to them at the present time; but he could not help recollecting that to some extent at all events the advantage of that offer was discounted by the statement of Mr. Speaker that afternoon—and he had the greatest respect for any statement which he offered to the House—that he at least was unable to see how that offer could be carried out within the terms of the Bill. If that were so—and he thought that they ought to pay great respect to that expression of opinion—surely it was an additional reason why the right hon. Gentleman should agree to the proposal made by his right hon. friend that the Bill should be recommitted on Friday next, in order that they might have an opportunity of carefully considering this question instead of having to dispose of it in a few minutes. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had appreciated what had fallen from his right hon. friend that if the proposal were adopted to recommit the Bill not a single moment of time would be lost. They on that side of the House would be perfectly prepared and willing to sacrifice any time to which they might be otherwise be entitled for the discussion of the Third Reading of the Bill. Under all the circumstances he thought they were entitled to make this appeal to the Government, and he hoped the Government would not finally refuse.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,)said he quite recognised the moderation of what the right hon. Gentleman had said, but he would ask the House not to recommit the Bill. He did not know how far such a course would fit in with the guillotine Resolution, as it was called, but even assuming that it would, there was ample power under the Bill as it stood for the Treasury to do that which the right hon. Gentleman wished. No further statutory authority was needed to carry out what his right hon. friend, with his own assent on behalf of the Treasury, had undertaken to do in explicit terms. The time which remained would be better occupied, he thought, if the hon. and learned Member for Kingston would move his Amendment, which would make the clause clearer.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid he was very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Motion to recommit the Bill. It was quite clear from what he had said that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Commissioner of Works were prepared to meet the case and pay out of the Imperial Exchequer the expenses incurred by the Commissioners where the county council was in default.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR said he desired, with the leave of the House, to withdraw the Amendment he had moved, in order that the hon. Member for Kingston might move his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 17, after the word 'scheme,' to insert the words 'and to be properly payable by the county council.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted "
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to realise what he was doing. He was, in fact, giving a premium to a county council to go in default. ["No."] Yes, if a county council were obstinate and were in default and any loss were incurred, the Treasury would pay the whole of it, and therefore, instead of its being to the interest of every county council to work the Bill for all it was worth, it would be

899
to their interest to allow themselves to be put in default. Whether the scheme turned out successfully or whether it turned out a failure, the loss might not fall on the ratepayers, but be borne by the Exchequer. That was the result of the clause in the form in which the Government had now cast it. He could only say that he regretted this equally from the point of view of the Exchequer and from the point of view of the smooth working of the Bill. Surely they wanted to see the county council put the Bill in force with a reasonable prospect of success rather than that an outside authority should come down and override them.
And, it being half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 9th August, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

EDUCATIONS (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER (Liverpool, Everton)said that on Clause 3 he had given notice of three Amendments, the object he had in view being to leave out the sanction of the Local Government Board. The object of the clause was to give the same rights to counties as to boroughs. That might be all very well in its way—
MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member does not make the Bill read.
Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid that unfortunately he had been obliged to draft his Amendments on the old Bill before the Committee Amendments were inserted. [Cries of "Order."] Many hon. Members opposite were in a great hurry to deal with this question, and he would like to refer them to the communications they had received from various town clerks in which they had
900
been requested to vote for this Motion, which provided that the term of sixty years should be applicable to the repayment of building loans under the Education Act. That was a matter of the very greatest importance to county and municipal boroughs, and one to which attention bad been drawn in the House for some considerable period. He would have thought the necessity of extending the period to sixty years would have been at once apparent, and would have been sanctioned by the Local Government Board.
MR. SPEAKER: I must again remind the hon. Member that his Amendment does not read.
Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid his object was to extend the period of repayment to sixty years.
MR. SPEAKER: So far as I can understand, what the hon. Member wishes to do is to take away the discretion of the Local Government Board, and to extend the period of repayment from thirty to sixty years in all cases. Does not that increase the charge on the rates?
MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: It lessens the charge. I wish to relieve the ratepayers.
Mr. LEIF JONESsubmitted that the amount repaid must be larger on account of the interest having to be continued over a greater number of years.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid the repayment of £5,000 in a period of thirty years would fall more heavily on the ratepayers than if the repayment were spread over sixty years.
MR. SPEAKER: If the bon. Member would put himself in that position he would find that more money was taken out of his pocket in sixty years than in thirty years.
MR. RAWLIXSON MR. RAWLIXSON (Cambridge University) moved to omit Clause 3. He protested against power being given to extend the period of repayment to sixty years. It was an excessive time over which to spread the repayment of money borrowed for the building of schools.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,)THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouth, N.) indicated dissent.
Mr. RAWLINSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman shook his head, but looking to the progress which had been made in the last thirty or forty years in the construction of school buildings he held that sixty years was an excessive period to take as the life of schools which were being put up at present. This was thoroughly bad finance. Each generation should bear its own burdens.
Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERseconded the Amendment. He considered that the clause was an absolute shame and a delusion and should be recommitted until it was made a real and proper clause. The provision for extending the period of repayment to sixty years was an imposture, because those who desired to extend the period were hampered and tied by I the necessity of obtaining the sanction of the Local Government Board. The Local Government; Board would say that they did not believe the schools would last for more than thirty years, while the Local Education Committee insisted that they would last for sixty years. Therefore, the Local Government Board would override the Local Education Committee. This was a very important matter to all counties and boroughs, for it meant excessive cost to them. Therefore, he contended that the clause ought to be eliminated from the Bill or made a really effective clause.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 4, to omit Clause 3."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
Mr. McKENNAsaid that the clause simply put the county council in exactly the same position as every borough and urban district council.
Question put, and agreed to.
VISCOUNT MORPETH*VISCOUNT MORPETH moved to omit Clause 5. The point he wished to raise was comparatively simple. A difficulty arose where the county council provided the furniture or buildings
902
out of revenue and not by way of loan. It was argued by the Local Government Board that that was not capital expenditure, and that therefore the county council were not entitled to charge three-fourths of the cost on the parish as they would otherwise have been. But the Courts had given a decision which made it plain what was a capital expenditure and what was not. He was satisfied to rest himself on the decision of the Courts which rendered it quite unnecessary for the Local Government Board to say what was capital expenditure and what was not. He preferred to rely upon the decision of the Courts rather than upon what might be the varying decisions of the Local Government Board.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 31, to leave out Clause 5."—(Viscount Morpeth.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'as' in page 3, line 34, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. McKENNAsaid that the noble Lord was perfectly right in his reference to the decisions of the Court of law; but there were other decisions, and the hon. Member by his proposal would be depriving the local authorities of a really valuable power if he did not allow these authorities to be informed in advance by the Local Government Board what would be regarded as capital expenditure when the audit came to be taken.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that as he understood the present situation it was that the question of capital expenditure was left to be determined by the Local Government Board, which had decided that nothing should be regarded as capital expenditure unless the money had been raised by way of loan by the local authority. The question had been already before the Courts of law which had decided in favour of the local authorities. If the local authorities desired to have access to the Courts of Law, he urged the right hon. Gentleman not to exclude them from their jurisdiction.
MR. McKENNAsaid that that question would arise in a later Amendment.
LORD R. CECILthought the Amendment would carry out the wishes of everybody and leave things as they were. As he understood the question it was that capital expenditure was confined to the expenditure of money raised by way of loan. That solitary question had been disposed of by the Courts, who said that capital expenditure was capital expenditure, and although it was not quite clear he agreed that it was sufficient for this purpose. He did not see the necessity for the clause, because it would give the local authority power to over-rule what the Courts had said, and to charge on a parish what the Courts said should not be charged. If the clause were struck out the position would be exactly defined by; the Court of King's Bench, which said that the fund which accountants said was capital expenditure was capital expenditure. The clause, however, instead of doing any good for the local authority would be likely in his opinion to add to the confusion of the law, and it seemed to him that in view of the decision of the Law Courts the right thing was to strike out the clause. He might point out, moreover, that the clause was drafted before the decision of the Law Courts was given, and since the Courts had spoken he could not see that the clause was needed.
Mr. McKENNApointed out that under the clause there would be an appeal to the Court if the necessity arose. The noble Lord appeared to think that the only dispute which would arise would be that which was dealt with by the decision he had quoted, but there were other cases in which it was desirable that the Courts should decide what was and what was not capital expenditure, and that contingency was dealt with under the words of the section.
Mr. ADKINS Mr. ADKINS said the only question in the minds of hon. Members was whether this provision did really secure that appeal to the Court which they were desirous of having. If they were assured that it did there was no need for an Amendment, but if it did not he thought they should have an Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
MR. ADKINS MR. ADKINS moved an Amendment providing that no question should be raised "on audit" as to the treatment of expenses which, by order of the Local Government Board, it was declared might or might not be treated under Section 18 of the Education Act, 1902, as expenses incurred in respect of capital expenditure. He said the insertion of the words "on audit" would meet the desire of local authorities to have an appeal to the Courts of law.
Mr. VERNEYseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 34, after the word 'raised' to insert the words 'on audit.'"
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Mr. McKENNAsaid that as a feeling had been expressed on both sides of the House that these words should be inserted he would accept the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. GEORGE WHITE MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N. W.) moved an addition to Clause 9, which provides that the condition that the annual expenses of the maintenance of a school not managed by a school authority are, to the extent of not less than one-third, to be defrayed out of sources other than local rates or money provided by Parliament shall cease to be a condition required for the grant of a certificate under Section 7 of the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893, to such a school as a school suitable for providing elementary education for blind or (leaf children. The Amendment was to add the words "on condition that the local authority shall appoint one-third of the governing body."
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 28, after the word 'children' to insert the words 'on condition that the local authority shall appoint one-third of the governing body.'"
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. McKENNAsaid he would accept the Amendment.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONobjected to the introduction of the words as not being applicable to this class of school. Besides, he complained that the words not being on the Paper the House had had no opportunity of considering them.
VISCOUNT MORPETHargued that the words were quite unnecessary, and pointed out that there were not a great many of these schools. County councils had to send children to them a very great distance in another part of the country, and it might not be convenient for them to appoint representatives in regard to the management of schools which might be hundreds of miles away from their own county. He did not think the object which the hon. Member had in view would be obtained by this proposal.
MR. McKENNAsaid that hitherto these schools had been maintained out of private funds mainly on condition that one-third of the expenditure was provided from public funds. For the first time it was sought to relieve these schools from the necessity of being carried on by private enterprise and the whole cost of them would be paid for out of rates and taxes, whereas the management of them was carried on by an absolutely private body. It was therefore desirable that there should be some control on the part of the public. This was not a religious question at all, but a question of management, and as the request was only for one-third of the management acting on behalf of the public he did not see any objection. He admitted the administrative difficulty which had been raised by the noble Lord, and if the claim bad been for a majority of the members of the Board being nominated to represent the public it would no doubt have been difficult to work the provision. But all that was asked for now was that there should be some public representation to keep an eye on the expenditure of public money, and under those circumstances he thought the Amendment was a perfectly reasonable one.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid there might be several local authorities who sent children to these deaf and dumb schools. Were those local authorities to be represented?
MR. McKENNAsaid certainly not; only the local authority where the school was.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that that was not what the Amendment provided. The Amendment provided that each local authority should be represented.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it did not appear that hon. Members quite understood what the Amendment was; perhaps Mr. Speaker would put the Question again.
MR. SPEAKER: Amendment proposed—
"Clause 9, to" add, 'on condition that the local authority shall appoint one-third of the governing body.'"
LORD R. CECILsubmitted that that meant each local authority. How did anyone know that the trusts of the school, if there were any trusts, would permit any such appointments to be made? If not, they would not be able to take advantage of this clause. Moreover, what provision was there for the appointment of these people? No such power was given, no machinery was provided. To put in these words in a casual kind of way in order to express the aspiration of the hon. Member for Norfolk was not good legislation. The terms of the Amendment ought at least to be carefully considered if the Government thought it was necessary.
MR. McKENNAsaid there was a great deal in what the noble Lord had said. He had words to propose which, he thought, would meet the case—"Provided that on the body of managers at least one-third are members appointed by the local authority." He would move those words or see that they were inserted in another place.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid that he accepted the wording suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. The clause dealt with national funds as well as with the local rates, and where institutions were maintained by public funds some public control should be claimed.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that they must not be taken as assenting to the suggestion of the President of the

907
Board of Education that this matter should be dealt with on a subsequent occasion. The hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the original proposal suggested that because these schools were paid for by public money, the local authority should have a share in the management, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite had contended times out of number that the main expenditure came out of the taxes, and not out of the rates. How then could it be contended that the ratepayers should be represented on the management? It was now suggested that the local authorities should have a share in the management. That could only be dope by a scheme which had been the subject of very careful consideration. He suggested that the hon. Member should not accept the suggested Amendment as it did not meet the view which he had put forward, and that the House should not be committed to the casual proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. ADKINShoped that the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the undertaking he had given, carrying out some measure of local control. It was hardly correct to say that the local authority represented the ratepayers and that this House represented the taxpayer. The local authorities represented the community generally, and he hoped that if the Amendment was not carried in another place the clause would be struck out, and that this serious precedent would not be created. Local oversight of a representative character was needed for the expenditure of this money.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman felt, and he thought rightly, that they could not deal with this difficult question to-night. It was admitted that the original Amendment would not do what was the Government substitute for it? It was that a third of the body of managers was to be provided by the county councils. But who was going to settle what county councils? It would be necessary to have an additional Amendment by which the Board of Education or Local Government Board could frame a scheme by which the various county councils might have their representatives, and rival claims might be settled. That was not beyond the powers of legislation of that House, but it could not be done that night, and
908
he suggested that the point should be left over in order that the Government-might have time to consider it.
MR. WALTERSsaid that if this was a question so fraught with difficulty that it was not possible to frame an Amendment to meet the case then they must fall back on the other alternative and omit the clause altogether. There was this difficulty about accepting; the clause with some such qualification as had been suggested, that they would be granting a large sum of public money for the maintenance of these schools; they would be really dealing with one aspect of the question without dealing with the other at the same time. If they were going to grant an additional sum of money, surely at the same time they should have a provision for a larger measure of public control. Therefore, if the Amendment could not be dealt with now, he suggested that the clause should be omitted altogether.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERpointed out that it ought to be possible to amend the Amendment in the form which had been suggested. Nobody had raised any objection on the other side of the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Amendment did not suggest what county councils; it suggested unknown county councils.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that if the county councils were unknown, then instead of putting in the words "local authority" they might put "the county council in whose area the school is situated." That would give public control for the money given under the Bill The only other alternative was that the whole clause should be struck out, unless hon. Gentlemen opposite were willing to accept some form of words which would meet the case of the taxpayer and ratepayer.
MR. WEDGWOODhoped that the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Brightside division would not be acted upon, and that the clause would be retained in the Bill. Anyone who knew anything of these schools knew what a valuable work they did; they were of the utmost importance for blind and deaf

909
children. He trusted that, whatever happened, the Government would not part with this clause, whether they accepted the Amendment or not.
Mr. BYLESsaid he agreed with the hon. Member as to the value of these schools, but he would like to say that there had been a good many opinions expressed since this provision was put into the Bill in Committee. He was present in the Committee when it was submitted. The new clause came on just at the end when they were a little hurried, and he thought that perhaps the clause itself was accepted without full consideration. Since then there had been a considerable expression of opinion among his colleagues around him that some such provision as was suggested by the Amendment should be carried as a proviso to the clause. None of the speakers on the other side or in any part of the House had taken any objection to the essence of the Amendment, but only to the method by which it was proposed to be applied. He hoped that the clause would not he dropped, but that some provision would be made that where the total annual expenditure was provided for out of public money there should be some representative of the local authority to see to the administration of it. The committee or managing board of any of these schools would welcome the presence of the mayor or some competent local representative to assist them in the administration of these valuable institutions.
MR. GEORGE WHITEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."]
Leave to withdraw being refused, Question put, and negatived.
MR. McKENNA, on Clause 11, moved to leave out subsection 1.
MR. GEORGE WHITE, on a point of order, asked whether it was too late for the clause to be withdrawn.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that if the Amendment had been withdrawn then it would have been possible to withdraw the clause, but as there had been a decision on the Amendment it was not possible to go back.
MR. McKENNA MR. McKENNA said he might state that in the proceedings on the Bill of 1902, it was intended to amend Section 23 in that direction, but owing to words of hasty advice by the hon. Baronet opposite that was not done. On the present occasion he proposed to repeal those words, which appeared to him to be the simplest form of dealing with the matter. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 35, to leave out subsection (1)."—(Mr. McKenna.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 13, at the end, to add the words 'and the words ordinarily resident in the area of the council," in subsection two of section twenty-three of The Education Act, 1902, are hereby repealed.'"—(Mr. McKenna.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
SIR HENRY CRAIKproposed to insert in line 25 after the first "the" the words "power, and where required by the Board of Education, the." In the past he had done all he could in favour of medical inspection, but he felt certain that the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman was now putting forward was fraught with danger. When the Government came forward for the first time to establish a great and noble work of the highest importance for the future of the the nation it ought to be done in a way that showed promise of working in a smooth and easy manner. What would be thought of a proposal under which, after asking local authorities to establish these schools and maintain and manage them they said "we have no help for you, but we shall probably give you directions and offer you grants, but not just now." That was practically what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. He was placing upon the local authorities a very heavy financial burden which would be very severely felt and would involve enormous difficulty, because it would require the highest scientific skill and direction at every step. To carry out this proposal the local authorities would be required to

911
interfere very seriously indeed with individual liberty. In beginning the work they would have to face the fact that it would be necessary to deal with very serious prejudices. The difficulty was one which the Government ought not to place upon the local authorities without taking a large share of the responsibility both financially and in a scientific direction. By proceeding in the way now proposed they would perhaps do more harm than good. There was a precedent for what he suggested in a measure of a similar kind for Scotland at present before Parliament. That Bill proposed that "a school board may, and where required by the Department shall, provide for medical inspection." That was what he wished to be done in this Bill. They ought to give them this power before forcing them to take an over-zealous or mistaken step. The right hon. Gentleman might reply that he was going to have a medical department at the Education Department. He would like to know if that matter had been laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer? [Cries of "Divide, divide."] Were hon. Members who were so impatient aware of what this proposal was going to cost? When the Government came forward with a scheme of this kind the House ought to see that it was a complete one. They were now proposing to enter upon the biggest work which the nation had to do. [A LABOUR MEMBER: "And the best."] If they began in a wrong wrong way they would probably do more harm than good. It was for these reasons that he moved the Amendment standing in his name, which would put the English Bill on the same footing as the Scottish Bill. His proposition would enable the local authorities to do what they wanted instead of forcing them to act prematurely.
MR. ASHLEYseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 25, after the first the, 'to insert the words' power, and where required by the Board of Education, the.'"—(Sir Henry Craik.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. McKENNAexpressed the hope that the hon. Gentleman would not press
912
the Amendment. The hon. Member said he wanted a more complete scheme but his words, instead of increasing the scheme would cut it down.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he generally concurred with his hon. friend on education matters, but he confessed that on this occasion he entirely differed from him. What he proposed would be a great impediment to an important reform. Englishmen looked forward with the greatest interest to the work which was contemplated. This question was raised last week at the conference on hygiene, and opinion on it was practically unanimous. He hoped the House of Commons would sanction this proposal, and so give effect to public opinion as expressed by large bodies throughout the country. It was a good work which all civilised nations desired.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONexpressed the hope that his hon. friend would not press the Amendment. The Government were taking an important step in laying on local authorities a very serious duty and, if it was to be carried into effect, the means of giving proper guidance should be supplied. He felt sure that the resources of the local authorities-would have to be supplemented by a Government grant. He and his friends-would like to have an indication from the Board of Education as to whether that demand would be met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were serious difficulties in the way of medical inspection, and he would like the Government to give some assurance that they were alive to the importance of the step they were taking, and that they were preparing the machinery for giving the step all the efficacy it was likely to demand.
Mr. LUPTONsupported the Amendment, believing that it was a proposal in favour of local and individual liberty.
MR. WADSWORTHasked whether there-was any prospect of the formation at the Board of Education of a medical department specially devised for dealing with this question. Apart from the

913
question of assistance from the Exchequer towards the cost of this scheme, there was the far more important question of guidance and direction being given by skilled persons, so that the best value might be obtained not only from the expenditure of the money, but from the accumulated experience of those who would be engaged in the work.
Mr. McKENNAsaid it had always been their object to establish a medical branch for the purpose of guiding local authorities in the new work they would have to undertake. The formation of that branch had been occupying the attention of the Board for some time. Their duties would be obviously to collect information and to give such instructions to the local authorities as would enable them to carry out the duties which were imposed upon them.
Question put, and negatived.
SIR PHILIP MAGNUS*SIR PHILIP MAGNUS (London University) moved an Amendment to provide for instituting a system of periodic measurement of the children which would afford definite information on their physical condition and development. In the second part of Subsection (b) of Clause 13 there was a permissive power given to the local authority to make such arrangements as might be sanctioned by the Board of Education for attending to the health and physical condition of the children. He had considerable difficulty in understanding the meaning of the words "for attending to the health and physical condition of the children." He hoped the President of the Board of Education would give some indication of the exact moaning. Did they mean that the medical officer appointed should give advice to the children, or the parents of the children, and, further, would he be permitted to supply medical treatment to the children? The words of his Amendment would enlarge the powers of the local authority, but they were purely permissive; if the local authority did not care to undertake the work, no obligation would be cast upon them. It had been pointed out at a meeting of the British Association and at the Hygiene Congress that very great advantage would be derived by the nation, by the individual children, and by their
914
parents, if these measurements were taken periodically. They were the very best means of ascertaining whether any physical deterioration had taken place He wished to draw attention to a very important Report which had been presented to the Glasgow School Board by Dr. Leslie Mackenzie and Captain Foster, and issued by the Board of Education of Scotland. From that it appeared that the facilities now asked for in England already existed in Scotland. The results arrived at in the report were almost startling. They showed that the weight, height, and physical condition of the children depended absolutely on the home surroundings in which they were brought up. For instance, the average weight of a boy who lived in a family occupying one room was 52·6 lbs.; if he were one of a family living in two rooms he weighed 56·1 lbs.; if he were one of a family living in three rooms he weighed 60·6 lbs.; and a boy from a four or more roomed house weighed 64·31 lbs. The cost of these measurements would not be very great, and Dr. Leslie Mackenzie said that the teachers in the school took a lively interest in the measurements, and showed how they could be made by the ordinary teachers under the guidance of the medical inspectors. Last week a joint meeting of the Anthropological and Educational School Sections of the British Association adopted a resolution urging on the Government the pressing necessity of instituting in conneetion with the medical inspection of school children a system of periodical measurements. As this matter was under the consideration of the House for the first time, he hoped they would deal with it in a comprehensive manner. He begged to move.
MR. LEHMANNseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 33, after the word 'schools' to insert the words 'and for instituting a system of periodic measurement of the children which will afford definite information on their physical condition and development.'"—(Sir Philip Magnus.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Sir W. J. COLLINSsaid that the hon. Member for London University had come back fresh from the British Association meeting imbued with ideas of a more scientific but less practical character than those which had engaged the attention of the members of the School Hygiene Congress which he (Sir William Collins) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan had been attending. The latter Congress directed their attention to the practical work of the inspection of the school children rather than to the scientific investigation suggested by the British Association. What they had to consider were the practical needs of the children as ascertained by medical inspection rather than embark upon the scientific investigations advocated by the hon. Member. It should be remembered that 7 to 20 per cent. of the children suffered from ocular defects, which required treatment before they could gain the full benefit of their education, and 44,000 out of 199,000 children examined were found to have verminous or otherwise offensive heads. He believed that the practical way of dealing with the problem of these children would form a very good basis out of which the scientific investigations advocated by the hon. Member might incidentally arise. But the work must be approached tactfully and in a considerate and not a compulsory way, and the medical man must be a guide, philosopher, and friend, rather than a mere collector of statistics.
MR. BUTCHERagreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that the primary object of this clause was not to arrive at scientific results, but to attain truly practical ends with regard to the children, and all he would ask the House was not to throw away the valuable results of this inspection, which, he hoped, would assist other scientific purposes. He ventured to hope that this clause, which at present was, he thought, very timid and very tentative, should be made more complete and more thorough going. He did not believe that by accepting the Amendment that had just been proposed anything whatever would be done to make medical inspection less effective. He thought quite the reverse, because medical inspection, which was very sketchily marked in this clause as it stood, would probably be
916
more thorough-going if it were understood from the first that the results of the inspection were to be recorded systematically on a uniform plan for all parts of the country. There were three things, as he understood, which this clause proposed to do. First of all, there were compulsory powers for medical inspection, when a child first went to school. Next, there were compulsory powers for what he might call periodical inspection, and he was exceedingly glad that the Government had added powers of that kind, because he thought that inspection if not so conducted from the beginning to the end of the course would he very imperfect. Thirdly, there were optional powers for what was called attending to the health and physical condition of the children. In Committee upstairs it was explained that attending to the health of the children meant, or at least included, medical treatment for minor ailments. It did not mean what the words meant when originally introduced by an Amendment by the hon. Member for Berkwickshire, he thought in July, 1906. The words, as they had been told in Committee upstairs, now included medical treatment for all minor ailments. That was optional. He would pass on to the words which were the essential part of the Amendment. They might surely fairly add an optional power to the local authority of making scientific records. Personally he thought the whole clause ought to have been much more thorough and comprehensive in its character, and that it ought to have been more what the hon. gentleman the Member for Glasgow indicated in his speech—a thorough medical inspection followed by scientific records and accompanied by financial provisions which were absent from this clause. A subvention from the Treasury, he believed, was absolutely necessary in order to make the whole of this clause carry out its original purpose. He would only add in favour of the Amendment that what they wanted was not merely to attend to the minor ailments of the individual children at school, but to arrive at some scientific basis of knowledge as regarded the laws of health affecting populations in large towns, and to get some scientific data which would enable them to know something about what was called physical degeneration, and all those other questions which concerned the health of the people, as to which they were at present

917
working in the dark. He admitted that the Amendment would require financial assistance from the Treasury in order to make it thorough and useful, but if inserted as something to be striven after it would be a very great gain and would in no way detract from the immediate primary purpose of looking after the individual children.
MR. McKENNA MR. McKENNA said he had listened to the speeches of the hon. Members, and he thought the existing words in the Bill appeared to cover every point that had been raised. He did not think the hon. Member who moved the Amendment would wish it to be understood that attending to the health and physical condition of the children would not afford information as to their physical development; if it did, the words were clearly covered by the Bill as it stood, and if they were not he must remind the hon. Gentleman that it would be imposing a new burden on the rates; but he believed the Bill as it stood was sufficient for the purpose.
Amendment negatived.
MR. LANE-FOX MR. LANE-FOX moved an Amendment to provide that the cost of any treatment consequent upon the medical inspection should be charged against, and recovered from the parent as an expense under Section 2 of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906. He knew that he was laying himself open to the charge that he was not anxious to forward the medical inspection of children in elementary schools; but nothing could be further from the truth He was anxious to make the inspection thoroughly effective, but what he wanted to ensure was that a man who was taking care of his own children should not be penalised by having to pay for the treatment of children whose parents were neglectful. They must remember that they were not there as philanthropists. They were, or, at any rate, they liked to think they were, business men; it was one of the pet delusions of every Member of Parliament to pretend, at any rate, that he took a business view of things. All he wanted to prevent was that those who took care of their children should not be penalised. What they ought to guard against if they could was a, system springing up by which medical
918
attendance, such as the parents ought to undertake themselves, would be undertaken at the public cost. In making that objection he was merely raising a point which was raised in connection with the Provision of Meals Bill last session, and he suggested that the remedy lay in the same direction. There was no doubt that a large number of the ailments from which children suffered, and which it was hoped to remedy by this clause, were the small ailments. He did not wish to prevent these being dealt with, and if dealt with on the spot they need not do harm. Therefore, if the Amendment he was moving could be improved by the addition of any such words as "conducted outside the precincts of the school," he would be very glad to accept it. Of course under this system what they would hope to see were village nurses employed to deal with small matters such as children arriving with dirty heads, which could be dealt with quickly. Very often the unhealthy condition of children in school was largely due to neglect, and therefore it would be manifestly wrong that some parents should be able to send their children, after being neglected at home, to be treated at school. What he wished to insist upon was that where a parent had deliberately neglected his children he should be in some way penalised. If any such words as he had suggested would be an improvement to his Amendment he would be very ready to accept them. Certainly it was not his desire to prevent proper medical inspection of children or that development which he was sure all thought to be so very desirable.
VISCOUNT TURNOURseconded, and thought there was one point not yet mentioned, and that was the important effect which the Amendment would have in making parents more careful to avoid during the early life of children things occurring which retarded their physical development. He did not think there was any hardship in the method laid down in the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill as to the means by which the money could be obtained from parents. The duty of attending to the physique of their children was a duty which should be impressed on parents in the strongest possible way. No one would deny the importance of having medical inspection, or the value which

919
statistics as to the physique of the elementary school children would have if published, and if they were as clear and lucid as statistics in other countries generally were. The Amendment in no way affected the principle of the clause, but really brought the clause, he thought, more into accord with the principles which Parliament had hitherto laid down in matters of this kind. He could not conceive any case in which it was more desirable to carry out the principles originally laid down in the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, and he believed the Amendment would do a great deal to bring about what both sides of the House desired.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 33, at the end, to add the words, 'Provided that the cost of any treatment consequent upon the medical inspection hall be charged against and recovered from the parent as an expense under Section 2 of the Educaton (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906.'"—(Mr. Lane Fox.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. McKENNAsaid he regretted after much consideration of the proposed Amendment that he could not see his way to accept it. If the words suggested were adopted it would compel local authorities to make such a provision in every case. Under the circumstances of the case it was much more desirable to preserve a greater latitude. He asked the hon. Member not to press the Amendment, but to leave the matter in its present form, which was as fair as it could be.
Sir F. BANBURYsaid the Amendment provided that where parents could afford to pay they should be made to pay. So far as he could make out local authorities were not likely to provide very much medical inspection if they had to pay for it. Yet the opinion of the House was that there should be medical inspection. Certainly it was hard that the parent who looked after his children should have to pay for medical inspection which was necessary owing to the neglect of other parents who could afford to pay for their children but refused to do so. All hon. Members must know that there were a great many parents who did not do their duty in; respect of the health of their children.
920
He hoped that his hon. friend would go to a division on the Amendment.
MR. REESsubmitted that while the medical inspection of children on their admission to schools was very proper, it was perfectly consistent with approving such inspection to lay it down that where a parent could afford to pay he should be made to pay for any treatment or inspection other than that at the time of admission into school. He could not see how hon. Members could otherwise argue at a time when the progressive increase in the rates so greatly neutralised the great advantage the country derived from free trade in the way of cheap food and clothing. The cheapness of these was almost counterbalanced by the dearness of lodging, and in rents, rates were, if not the dominant, at any rate, a dominating factor. In no other country was house rent so dear, he believed. He wished to urge that the proviso to this section, should be compulsory instead of permissive. He had good reason to speak in favour of this Amendment, because it ran on the same lines as one which he himself had put on the Paper, but having urged his views in Committee he thought it would be waste of time to move it. It was at his instance and on his motion that the proviso had been added to the hon. Member for Scarborough's Bill, which he presumed would now be dropped, and it was he who, had urged in the House that such an Amendment should be made to an identical clause in the Education Bill which passed the House last year. Such an Amendment was eventually made in another place, but of a permissive and not a compulsory character. He would like-to see it made compulsory that parents should pay where they could, and that local bodies should avail themselves of existing organisations, before calling on the rates. He realised, however, that the House was against him.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONregretted very much that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accept the Amendment or something like it—that was to say, the provision of any treatment outside school. He called attention to the extreme vagueness of the clause. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary, when asked what was meant

921
as an arrangement for the children, described a small hospital outside the school. He thought that the charge for treatment should operate on the parents of children who were treated. He agreed there would be some difficulty in arranging this, because it would be rather difficult to apportion the nurses' salaries in the charge on the parents concerned
MR. McKENNAassured the hon. Baronet that he had endeavoured with the greatest sincerity to find suitable words to carry out the object they had in view. He asked his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment. He thought no other course was open to the House in order to attain the end they had in view but to accept the clause as it stood.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid he did not agree that the words as they stood in the Amendment could not be accepted. He saw no difficulty in working the proposal even in the extreme case of allocating the nurse's salary. He did not see what objection there was to carrying this out on the same principle as the provision of meals. He attached the greatest importance to the principle. He thought it very important to show to parents who did not fulfil their duty to their children that the children should be taken care of, but that the cost should be borne by the parents who should be made to pay. He knew that the vast majority of parents took proper care of their children, but on the other hand there were drunken and careless parents whom it was a scandal for the State to treat better than other people.
MR. McKENNA: The Bill does not do that. It empowers the local authority to make charges, and the local authority can make suitable arrangements for a particular district.
MR. WALTERSsaid the experience of local authorities who had appointed medical officers was that they called the attention of neglectful parents to their children to induce them if possible to give them the necessary attention. Children with drunken parents in some few cases did fall on the ratepayers, but surely the interests of the children were enough to justify this. He thought that in cases
922
whore there was a medical officer appointed it would be found that the benefits would in no way be abused.
MR. BUTCHERsaid that this was one of the most important principles they had considered in Committee. It was very disappointing to hear from the President of the Board of Education that he could not devise any form of words to meet the urgent ease set out, nor accept the words suggested by the hon. Baronet. The right hon. Gentleman said he could assure the hon. Baronet that his words were unsatisfactory, but no reason had been given to show why they were unsatisfactory. To his (Mr. Butcher's) mind they were eminently satisfactory—for this reason. There were a great many people who objected to having more serious medical treatment of children thrown on the rates when the parents of the children could afford to pay, but who at the same time did not object to paying for the services of a trained nurse to look after the minor ailments of children on the school premises. Such a case would be met by the suggested Amendment of the hon. Baronet. From experience in this country and elsewhere they knew there were many places where there was medical inspection out of public money. At the same time there were health-visitors or nurses, or whatever they might be called, whose function it was to look after the health of the children in the schools and who then advised the parents and often succeeded in inducing them to adopt the treatment recommended. That was the method he would have much preferred in the present instance. As it was, surely it was inconsistent to have laid down the principle in the Provision of Meals Bill that public money should not be given to provide even the necessaries of life for the children of parents who could afford to pay; and now to enact that public money should go towards providing what in some sense were merely the luxuries of life, such as a pair of spectacles. The precedent of the Provision of Meals Bill was one of the strongest arguments for the acceptance of this Amendment.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid he wished to reply to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last on the opposite side of the House, a speech

923
which he thought was exceedingly misleading. The hon. Member had said that local education authorities who had appointed medical officers had found that they were mostly employed in discovering the causes of illness and pointing them out to parents. But he would like to draw his attention to the wording of the Amendment, which was not designed for the medical inspection, but for the treatment consequent on medical inspection. They were informed in the Grand Committee, on behalf of the Government, that the kind of treatment that was expected was the washing of children's dirty heads, and the treatment of small sores and wounds. He wished to add his protest there, as in the Grand Committee, against the parent who looked after his child properly being compelled to contribute towards the treatment in the school of the child of the neglectful parent It was quite a wrong principle, it was surely right that some burden should be placed on the mother who neglected her child rather than that the burden and disadvantage should fall on the mother who treated her child properly and looked after it. He rather gathered, from the way his remarks, were received in Grand Committee, that the Government intended to give careful attention to this matter. He accepted the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he had done so, but he must express his regret that the result had been so small—in fact there had been no result. He was very glad to have had an opportunity of protesting in the House against the course the Government had pursued, and he hoped his hon. friend would go to a division.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he could understand the impatience of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, who were obviously quite anxious that the Amendment should be rapidly disposed of. The Minister in charge of the Bill had told them that the Amendment would not have the desired effect, but he did not tell them why. The situation before the House was a perfectly simple one. Clause 2, as amended, would do what most of them wanted, and would do it most efficiently. What they wanted was that where this medical treatment, consequent on the inspection, took place outside the school they should not take advantage of this proposal by a side wind to cast
924
the cost on the rates. If the Amendment was not inserted the cost would have to be met out of the rates. This was the only method they had of protesting, and he trusted his hon. friend would press the Amendment to a division.
Mr. ALDENtrusted the right hon. Gentleman would not change his mind. A good many Members who had spoken in support of the Amendment evidently had very little knowledge of the poor at all. He knew something about them, having lived amongst them a good many years. He believed a lot of the diseases of the poor which were complained of were due to the ignorance and poverty of the poor, and not to their carelessness and neglect. It would be almost impossible to discriminate between the cases due to wilful neglect and those due to ignorance. He hoped the Advisory Medical Board would act as generously as possible in laying down regulations for the guidance of medical authorities. He believed that if the Amendment were adopted all the parents would be immediately turned against medical inspection. What they wanted to do was to popularise the idea of medical inspection and of medical treatment. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would stand firm in the matter.
MR. LANE-FOXasked leave to amend his Amendment so that it should read:—"Provided that the cost of any treatment conducted outside the precincts of the school, and consequent upon the medical inspection, etc." The remarks of the last speaker only bore out what he had said in moving the Amendment, that Members who supported him were liable to misrepresentation. He did not say the hon. Member had made that statement intentionally. They had no wish in any way to interfere with the medical inspection of the child, but they merely desired that those who had neglected their children should pay for them.
MR. COUKTHOPEseconded the Amendment.
Proposed Amendment amended by inserting after the word "treatment," the words—
"conducted outside the precincts of the schools, and"—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."

AYES.

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

Chance, Frederick William

Morpeth, Viscount

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Courthope, G. Loyd

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Banner John S. Harmood

Fell, Arthur

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Forster, Henry William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Turnour, Viscount

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gordon, J.

Valentia, Viscourt

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gretton, John

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

Bull, Sir William James

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Helmsley, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lane-Fox and Mr. Hicks-Beach.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hills, J. W.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Magnus, Sir Philip

NOES.

Acland Francis Dyke

Hall, Frederick

Morse, L. L.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Nicholls, George

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r).

Alden, Percy

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Asquith, Bt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Harwood, George

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Paulton, James Mellor

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Beauchamp, E.

Hedges, A. Paget

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pollard, Dr.

Beck, A. Cecil

Henry, Charles S.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

Higham, John Sharp

Radford, G. H.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Bertram, Julius

Holt, Richard Durning

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Horniman, Emslie John

Rendall, Athelstan

Bowerman, C. W.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Brace, William

Hudson, Walter

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

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hyde, Clarendon

Ridsdale, E. A.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Johnson, John. (Gateshead)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Kelley, George D.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cleland, J. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Rowlands, J.

Clough, William

Lambert, George

Runciman, Walter

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lamont, Norman

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

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

Cooper, G. J.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Seely, Colonel

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

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Dalziel, James Henry

Levy, Sir Maurice

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Simon, John Allsebrook

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

Lough, Thomas

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lupton, Arnold

Stanger, H. Y.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Essex, R. W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Summerbell, T.

Evans, Samuel T.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Sutherland, J. E.

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Killop, W.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Fenwick, Charles

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Ure, Alexander

Ferens, T. R.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Walters, John Tudor

Fuller, John Michael F.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Fullerton, Hugh

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Waterlow, D. S.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Marnham, F. J.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Massie, J.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Grant, Corrie

Micklem, Nathaniel

Weir, James Galloway

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Montgomery, H. G.

White, George (Norfolk)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morrell, Philip

White, Luke (York, E. R.).

The House divided:—Ayes, 39; Noes 149. (Division List No. 408.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

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

Wiles, Thomas

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Yoxall, James Henry

Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 37, at end, to add, '(2) This section shall come into operation on the first lay of January, nineteen hundred and eight.'"—(Mr. McKenna.)
Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In Schedule, page 7, line 27, at the end, to insert—

2 Edw. 7, c. 42.

The Education Act, 1902.

The words 'ordinarily resident in the area of the Council,' in sub section two of section twenty-three.'"—(Mr. McKenna)

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time and passed.

QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN (COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS) BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read.
The PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,)*The PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea) moved the Second Reading of this Bill, the object of which, he said, was to remove the disqualification of women from sitting on public bodies for which they were entitled to vote. The Bill enabled women, who were otherwise qualified, to sit on county and borough councils, and, if selected, as chairman of those bodies. It, however, did not entitle them to be Justices of the Peace by virtue of any such office. The House knew that women could be members and chairmen of parish councils, urban councils, and rural district councils or boards of guardians, and they could also vote for those bodies. Outside London, single women could vote for but not sit upon county councils or borough councils; married women could not vote and consequently could not sit. With regard to London Borough Councils, single women could vote but not sit by virtue of the Local Government Act of 1899, and for the London County Council single women could also vote but not sit.
928
This Bill proposed that women should have the right to sit on provincial borough councils, Metropolitan borough councils, and county councils. But in establishing their right to this, the Bill proposed that they should not be Justices of the Peace by virtue of their being chairmen of borough or county councils. In this the precedent of Section 22 of the Local Government Act of 1894 was followed. The House of Lords had altered the Bill so as to exclude women from being chairmen of county councils or mayors of boroughs. The Government proposed to disagree with the Lords' Amendment. This Bill raised no new question of franchise. If it did he ventured to say that the Bill would be most probably rejected for this session. It removed a disability that had recently been imposed upon women who were able to be elected for school boards. The Bill re-established that right which had been taken away. It removed doubts in one or two other matters, and he asked the House to give it a Second Reading. At this moment there were something like 2,000 women members of various urban, rural, and parish councils, and boards of guardians. There were 615 co-opted women members on education committees, and a few on distress committees, whilst others were members of governing bodies of polytechnics. As the law now stood, however, women could not be members of 320 town councils of provincial boroughs, of 29 Metropolitan borough councils, and of 62 county councils. The Bill, without approaching the question of a new franchise, without raising a number of questions which at that time of the session and that hour of the night could not be embarked upon, extended to women a useful sphere of local government for which they were thoroughly qualified, and in which many had done good service for their fellows, the community, and the State, and he appealed to the House to confine the Bill to its present provisions and to give it a Second Heading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was himself in favour of the extension to women of privileges they already enjoyed in a small portion of our local government, and of their being enabled to take that part in local affairs which their knowledge qualified them to take with advantage to the community and to their own credit. But he was surprised to hear that the Government were not satisfied with the form in which the Bill had come down to this House, because he did not think they would seriously quarrel with a decision which only seemed to take a common-sense view of the situation, namely, that women should not be qualified to sit as mayors of boroughs or as chairmen of urban district councils.
MR. JOHN BURNS: Women can now be chairmen of parish, rural, or urban district councils, or boards of guardians.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that in that case the only effect of the proposal would be to extend the right of women to act as chairmen of county councils. [Several HON. MEMBERS: And borough councils]. He was not aware that there had been a case of a woman being elected as chairman of an urban council or board of guardians, but he could not help thinking it was undesirable that that particular privilege should be extended to them. He thought they ought to be members of these local bodies, because in all local government their special knowledge and experience were of very great value. He was rather surprised that the Bill did not extend to Ireland, because in this particular respect the local authorities in Ireland differed in no way from the local authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom, and he hoped that when the Bill got into Committee Amendments might be proposed to extend whatever privileges the House decided to grant to women, whether they were members of English, Irish, or Welsh local bodies. Subject to revision in the way he had suggested, he would be prepared to support the passage of this Bill.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNER MR. HARMOOD-BANNER moved the rejection of the Bill. He said that he did so for the very good reason that he had been ton years a mem-
930
ber of a city council, and he considered that a more inappropriate proposal than that women should sit on such councils and take part in their deliberations was never brought before the House. It was quite possible that it should be appropriate in the case of small rural or parish councils, but where there were large councils like that in the City of Liverpool—with 120 members—quite as many as sat during many of the discussions in the House of Commons he did not think it was at all a proper thing to include women amongst the members. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] For this reason: in the first place, the subjects discussed in a large council were with very few exceptions quite outside the scope of the work women could undertake. For instance, what had women to do with electric light, gas works, finance, the management of horses, tramways, and other similar work, which was essentially men's work? It was perfectly correct to say that the co-optation of women on certain committees bad been most valuable, and he would like to see the principle of co-optation extended. Women had done very good work for education. If they were co-opted on health committees and on bodies dealing with hospitals they would doubtless do work that would be very beneficial, but that they should take part in the work of large councils he could not consider right. If once they were admitted to city councils there was no doubt what would follow. They would come to Parliament. At once he would say he was in favour of women having the vote. The vote was a proper thing to give them. He had given every, assistance he could to support the cause of women's votes. He had no dislike to women's having votes, but only to their sitting and talking on a city council. Would it be nice, for instance, for women to sit there in Parliament and take part in that roar of laughter which had just been sent up? He would ask hon. Members to consider whether the empty benches in the House that night showed that there was any such demand for this concession to women as was indicated by the fulness of the benches when there was to be a discussion on the propriety of giving women the vote? When the question arose of giving women the vote the whole House was in a state of excitement; but the provision then before hon.

931
Members was merely a sop to Cerberus, because women had kept guard in Cavendish Square outside the house of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because they had caused great rows and troubles in Downing Street, and because they had required the services of the police outside the Houses of Parliament when demanding votes. It was now supposed that this Bill was going to give to women that sop which would content them. He would have thought that the President of the Local Government Board would have given an option to large city councils like that of Liverpool to adopt the principle of the inclusion of women if they thought fit. All those who had sat in such councils would know the work there was oftentimes of keeping order. It did not matter whether the council was that of Liverpool or Manchester or anywhere else. It would be most inappropriate for women to take part in those yells of laughter which sometimes arose in the House of Commons, and which they would certainly hear in city councils. [An HON. MEMEBER: Only in Liverpool.] No, Liverpool showed an example of the best civic work. He did not think it was either right or proper to put women on city councils. He could not understand the President of the Local Government Board, with his experience of municipal councils, asking city councils to take this on their shoulders: and, added to that, the possibility of women becoming mayors or chairmen of county councils was a greater wonder to him still. Let them imagine a lady taking the position of a mayor of a city council! [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] Because she could not enforce order there. It would be most inappropriate. It was absolutely inappropriate that women should take part in the various questions that came up at a city council meeting, and he regarded it as an insult to the big city councils that such a proposal should have been brought forward. He hoped that before the Bill got to Committee the right hon. Gentleman would give to big city councils the option of adopting the principle or not as they thought fit. By all means let them give women votes, but hon. Members would agree it was inappropriate that women should sit in the House alongside hon. Members. Equally women would certainly not be in their proper place in city councils. Let women be put on health committees and on
932
hospital boards, but let them not enter city councils upon which neither their counsel, their advice, nor their assistance was sought.
MR. DUNNwished to call attention to a provision in the Bill which he very much regretted. He thanked the President of the Local Government Board for the way in which he had introduced the measure, but he doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman realised how far the Bill would go, or rather how far it did not go. The objection which he had to the Bill was that it did not qualify married women to sit on councils. He would not like, at that late hour, to enter into an argument to show that this was so. Though he would support the Second Reading of the Bill he hoped an opportunity would be given to amend this defect in Committee. Of all classes of women it was the married woman with broad sympathies who could best help forward the municipal work of borough I and city councils. He cordially supported the Second Reading, and he hoped that the defect he had pointed out would be I remedied.
MR. HILLSasked whether, I if the Bill passed, a woman would be able to become Lord Mayor of London and could she sit on a county council.
MR. JOHN BURNS: A woman may sit on a county council under this Bill I doubt very much whether a woman will ever be Lord Mayor of London.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he would like to support his hon. friend in objecting to the Bill. One of his reasons was that he very strongly opposed the Parliamentary franchise or anything approaching it being given to women. This, he considered, would be one of the first steps on the downward path to female suffrage. As women had the vote already for borough and county councils the time had come when they would be qualified to sit on them. He could not help thinking that it was a great mistake to qualify women in this way. He agreed that women could give-very useful service in certain local matters. No doubt the service which they had rendered to the school boards was of very great value, and the service they rendered

933
on education committees at the present time was equally good. They might do good work respecting lunatic asylums, the Midwives' Act, and other matters, and he could not see why a Bill should not be introduced to extend power to co-opt women instead of allowing them to sit on councils. To do so was to put men and women in an unfair position, respectively: they might be placed face to face as contestants in an election. It was all very well to say that women already served on boards of guardians and parish councils. Everyone knew that the larger the body to which an election was being made, the greater the keenness and the rivalry that attached to the election. Very often elections to county councils were fought with great vigour, and he thought in some parts of the country it would be an unfair thing to ask women to stand for those bodies, whereas a man would not care to do things he might otherwise do in opposing a woman for the position. The suggestion in the Bill had the double disadvantage of putting women in a sphere for which they were not fitted, and of causing men to oppose women in a conflict which was not suitable. He believed it was not the function of women to take part in the rough and tumble of politics. It was inevitable, if they were to be allowed to sit on borough and city councils, that the time would come when they would be not only qualified to vote for Parliament but to sit in the House itself. The proposition that they should sit in the House seemed to be a reductio ad absurdum. It was a ridiculous and degrading proposal that women should sit in that Assembly; to no one more degrading than to the women themselves. Surely it was for men to govern the country of which they were citizens. The proposal that women should sit on borough and county councils seemed to him to divide the sexes into two hostile camps. It would not restore prestige to the House of Commons as the Prime Minister said so frankly he was going to do. That the Bill should be introduced for a Second Reading at that time of the year, and at that hour of the morning, he thought indicated a want of courtesy to the House.
MR. S. T. EVANS Glamorganshire, (Mid.)said that at that late hour it was quite obvious they could not adequately discuss the Second Reading of a measure
934
of that character, without trespassing, as they had no right to do, on the patience of hon. Members. He regarded the Bill as a great step in the direction of giving women the vote. A great many Members I of the House would probably vote for the Bill in the hope of hedging on the question of woman suffrage. With regard to the general question, he thought that in giving women the right of election and by placing on them the duty of becoming candidates for big bodies like the county councils, they were going much beyond all they had already done. It was quite true that women had done useful work as members of boards of guardians and of education committees—work properly within their sphere—but the House was now proceeding to give them the right to be elected. They could not be elected without coming down into the arena of conflict. The great local bodies wore, after all, the nearest approach to Parliament, and he could not understand what argument his hon. friends would be able to bring forward to prevent women coming into Parliament afterwards, if they were given the right to sit upon these bodies. The work of the county councils was very important; to a very large extent it was administrative, but it was also largely legislative in its character, as they framed by-laws in various directions, and it was well-known that these large public bodies were being intrusted with greater and greater powers every year by Parliament. Whenever anything had to be done, the county councils and the borough councils had to do it. Holding views that he did in regard to women taking part in public affairs, he regretted that the Government were asking the House, to give a Second Reading to this Bill at 1.30 in the morning on August 13th. He did not think it was treating the supporters of the Government properly to waste time on this Bill, when they might be doing something much more important. The Government had not the courage of their convictions in the matter. He could not understand why women should not be Justices of the Peace. There was no heated conflict in such work, and they would be there simply as Judges, if they were fitted by nature and training in every other way, either to be lady mayors or mayoresses, or chairmen or chairwomen—whatever they would be called—of county councils, what reason

935
was there for saying that they were not fitted to be Justices of the Peace? The right hon. Gentleman gave as his reason for this the precedent under some Act of 1894, but he had never heard such a reason from a man of the robust intellect of the right hon. Gentleman. Someone had said that old precedents were made to be trampled on. The reason which lay at the bottom of the Bill was that there had been an agitation for the Parliamentary franchise. The Government said they would not let women sit in the House, but they would go as far as they could, and admit women to sit on the next biggest public body in the country, the county council. He saw no distinction at all, except in degree, between the cases. Therefore, holding the views he did, if this Bill proceeded to a division, he would certainly have the courage of his conviction, and vote against the Second Reading.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid that the House in voting for this measure would be practically voting for female suffrage. The Bill was only introduced with the object of attempting to delay for some time the agitation that had been gradually gathering against the Government on the part of the suffragettes. If he might follow a distinguished example, he would like to put certain questions to the Government. First question: Are you in favour of female suffrage? Second: Would you introduce that suffrage on the same footing and basis as male suffrage? Third: Will you introduce it next session? And fourth, Will you allow women a seat in this House? All these questions were Very germane to the agitation on this Bill, and if they were to read it a second time that night they ought to know what the Government's intentions were, not only as regarded women's status on local bodies, but as regarded Imperial Parliament also. It was ludicious to contend that the Bill could be considered apart from female suffrage and the question of women sitting in the House. It was very undesirable that such a Bill should be discussed at that late hour, and at that advanced period of the session. He Would have thought that this Government would have been the last to introduce such a Bill at this time, having regard to the statements made by the Prime Minister and others at the general election, and
936
in the country, to the effect that they were going to restore be Parliament the dignity which it formerly possessed. Was it treating Parliament properly to introduce at that period of the Session a Bill of this sweeping character, which they knew very well would not be passed, and was only, as had been said earlier in the evening, a sop to Cerberus, and would only prevent, for a very short time, the agitation of the suffragettes from being carried on?
MR. LEIF JONES: Is that why the House of Lords passed the Bill?
VISCOUNT TURNOURreplied that he did not know. He could not speak for the House of Lords. He was, however, well aware that the House of Lords passed the Bill, and he would have thought that that would be just the reason why the Government would not pass it at that hour of the morning. He did not know why they should sit till 1.30 o'clock in the morning on August 13th to register the decrees of the House of Lords. Hon Gentlemen below the gangway had found themselves wrong in their calculations on several occasions during the last few months, but they had never been more wrong than now, when they were hoping by this Bill to propitiate the suffragettes. To make some slight protest against the way the Government had treated the House, he moved that the debate be now adjourned.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid he rather welcomed the introduction of the measure, and he would welcome it more strongly were he convinced that it was going to do that which it first conveyed to the mind of the House. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the Bill passed as it had been introduced, one married woman outside of London would be able to sit on either a county or borough council?
MR. JOHN BURNS: No.
Mr. MARKHAMsaid the hon. Member for Liverpool seemed entirely to lose sight of the fact that he was sent to the House by his constituents, and also to the city council. If these constituents chose to send women

937
to sit on the council, it was not the Liverpool City Council who would decide the question, but the electors of Liverpool city themselves. He therefore hoped the Government would keep a stiff back, and that his right hon. friend would not only pass the Bill, but that they would give full privileges to all married women.
DR. SHIPMANsaid he would like, as one who had charge of a similar measure in the last Parliament, to correct one or two misapprehensions. One speaker on the Opposition side seemed to think that this subject was inextricably mixed up with the franchise question. It was absolutely distinct from it. Those who supported this Bill supported it because they believed it was for the benefit of the country that women should undertake administrative work. There were many who voted for the last Bill in the last Parliament who were quite as strongly opposed as the noble Lord to women having the franchise, and he had almost as many supporters from the Unionist side as from the Liberal side. Again, those who were working up, if he might use the term, the enthusiasm in the country necessary to carry this Bill had nothing whatever to do with those who were working on what were called suffrage lines. The reason was that this Bill represented an older form of thought than that which would give the vote to women at Parliamentary elections. A body of women had been working to achieve that which this Bill proposed. They had seen the absolute necessity of enlisting the interest of women in local government work. Notwithstanding that they had been urged to take extreme steps, they had worked to this end with patience and confidence. Objection had been made to the Bill because it did not allow married women to sit on the councils. It did allow, as had been pointed out, married women to sit on the London County Council and on the metropolitan borough councils; but there was a Bill on the stocks, so to speak, to remedy the defect complained of. The reason there had been no provision to allow married women to sit on the county councils had been the difficulty of getting this Bill through the other House. Some of them thought they would like a Bill which would establish the great principle that women should be directly elected to serve on the
938
county councils, and that they should not suffer from the patronising condescension of men to co-opt them. That was one of the two principles they wanted to establish, and they congratulated the Government on having had the good sense and good taste to bring the matter before Pailiament this session even though it was rather late. They had established the principle, and they were determined that married women should be brought within it, but not necessarily in this Bill. [Several HON. MEMBERS: Why not?] It could be done by another Bill, on the same lines as the Bill of 1900, which enabled married women to serve on the London County Council. That was logical and created no anomaly whatever, and he would say to the hon. Member who described this as a leap in the dark that hon. Members knew perfectly well that ladies though, as it happened, without legal rights sat on the London County Council and did most excellent work on sixteen committees, and for years the London County Council had petitioned Parliament to give thorn the legal right. The Government intended to amend the Bill so that women could be lord mayors or mayors, and chairmen of county councils Women had done magnificent work. They had in every field of intellectual activity held their own with men, and in many cases beaten them. He thought an hon. Member opposite rather suggested in speaking of the electric light that in the dry field of mathematics or science they would not be able to hold their own. They knew, however, that a man had had to give way to a lady as Senior Wrangler. In every possible direction, women would be found holding their own, and they would be a restraining influence on the disorderly meetings such as the hon. Member opposite pictured in the Liverpool council chamber.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he was rather disappointed at the attitude of the President of the Local Government Board on this question. So far as he understood the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave to the question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, it was that the Bill would not allow any married woman to sit on any county council or borough council outside London. That took away in his view a

939
great deal of the attraction of the Bill. Certainly it was a great disappointment to him, and he could not understand how the Government could make a point of altering the Bill in order to allow women to become mayors and chairmen of councils, and yet refuse to allow them to be elected to county councils all over the country. It seemed to him that if the Bill was to go on in that form it was hardly worth supporting, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, and he believed that a large number of Members agreed with him, to alter the Bill in the direction he had mentioned.
MR. HICKS BEACHthought the right hon. Gentleman might give some explanation on the point raised by his hon. friend, whether it was the intention of the Government to delete the proviso that women should not be elected as chairmen of county councils or mayors of boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the Government proposed to delete it because women were now eligible to become chairmen of boards of guardians and district councils, but he had not given one instance in which that prerogative had been exercised. Under this Bill a woman might become mayor of a town and ex-officio she would be the chief magistrate of that town, [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?"]
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid there was a proviso against that.
Mr. HICKS BEACHsaid he was glad to have that announcement from the Government, but he still wished

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Chance, Frederick William

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Everett, R. Lacey

Alden, Percy

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Fenwick, Charles

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cleland, J. W.

Ferens, T. R.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Clough, William

Fuller, John Michael F.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Fullerton, Hugh

Beauchamp, E.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

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

Grant, Corrie

Beck, A. Cecil

Cooper, G. J.

Hall, Frederick

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

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Bowerman, C. W.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Brace, William

Courthope, G. Loyd

Haworth, Arthur A.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

Hedges, A. Paget

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Henry, Charles S.

Byles, William Pollard

Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

Higham, John Sharp

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hills, J. W.

to have some definite reason why ladies should become chairmen of city or borough councils at all. He could not imagine anything more inappropriate than that a woman should be asked to preside over a meeting of a great county council, city council, or borough council. His hon. friend below him had given a harrowing picture of what went on in the Liverpool council chamber, and he left the House to imagine what would be the position of a woman who had to preside over such a council. He thought the Government might give some better reason for their decision regarding the; proviso, and unless they did so he would support his hon. friend.
MR. RAWLINSONasked whether by deleting the proviso a woman would be eligible as a county magistrate?
MR. JOHN BURNS: No.
MR. RAWLINSONasked the Government whether they considered it was right to bring such a Bill, which at its best was of a piecemeal character, before the House. They knew now that it was engineered with the intention of carrying it by degrees further and further. That was bad enough when confined to a private Member, but when the Government took up a Bill of this kind it was not the right way to deal with a question.
Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The House divided:—Ayes, 132; Noes, 13. (Division List No. 409.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Horniman, Emslie John

Marnham, F. J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Micklem, Nathaniel

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hudson, Walter

Morrell, Philip

Stanger, H. Y.

Hunt, Rowland

Nicholls, George

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Strachey, Sir Edward

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Summerbell, T.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Paulton, James Mellor

Sutherland, J. E.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jowett, F. W.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingon

Ure, Alexander

Kelley, George

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Walters, John Tudor

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pollard, Dr.

Waterlow, D. S.

Laidlaw, Robert

Radford, G. H.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lamont, Norman

Rendall, Athelstan

Weir, James Galloway

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

White, George (Norfolk)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wiles, Thomas

Lupton, Arnold

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Wills, Arthur Walters

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rowlands, J.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Runciman, Walter

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

M'Killop, W.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Maddison, Frederick

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Seely, Colonel

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Sherwell, Arthur James

NOES.

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

Gordon, J.

Turnour, Viscount

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gretton, John

Castlereagh, Viscount

MacVeagh,. Jeremiah (Down, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Harmood-Banner and Viscount Holmsley.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Evans, Samuel T.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bill read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Tuesday)."—(Mr. John Burns.)

QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN (COUNTY AND TOWN COUNCILS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read.
THE SECRETAEY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR), in moving the Second Reading, explained that the Bill was similar to that which had just been before the House, and provided similar privileges for the women of Scotland. It had been through the House of Lords.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he could not understand why a separate Bill was need ed for Scotland unless there was some difference of which the House was not aware.
MR. SINCLAIRreplied that as the noble Lord was probably aware there
942
was a different system of local government in Scotland from that in England and a different Bill was necessary to effect for Scottish women privileges similar to those granted to English women. He could go into a general disquisition on the subject but he did not think that it would serve the interests of hon. Members at that hour of the morning.
VISCOUNT TURNOURcould see no reason for Parliament having been troubled with two Bills where one would have sufficed. He would not delay the House at that hour of the morning, but he would ask one question respecting Sub-section (b) of Clause 1 Were the exclusions mentioned in that subsection precisely similar to those in the English Bill?
MR. SINCLAIR: Precisely the same.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he was of opinion that if there was a Bill specially referring to Scotland, there ought to be a Bill particularly for Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that this Bill coincided in every respect with the English Bill he would say no more, but he certainly

943
thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have expedited business if he had included the Scottish Bill in the English Bill and had inserted separate clauses where necessary. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having brought forward a Bill which apparently had the approbation of nearly the whole House.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Tuesday).

TRANSVAAL LOAN GUARANTEE.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise 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, not exceeding in the aggregate an amount sufficient to raise five million pounds, and the principal of any such Loan by means of the guarantee of Sinking Fund payments, and also to guarantee the payment of any sums temporarily raised by the Colony of the Transvaal in anticipation of the Loan, with interest thereon."
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid it was generally agreed that the main debate should take place on the Second Reading. Still he thought the House might have some statement from the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,)explained that it was not with any desire of concealing anything that he had not risen to speak. The question raised by the Bill was one of principle, not of detail. It was not a complicated measure. Although the Session was so far advanced the Government had decided to give up a sitting to the consideration of the question. He thought it would be convenient to bring the question forward on Monday next. This was to be done to Suit the convenience of hon. members. As the Second Reading would be a more
944
convenient stage he would not go into the merits of the Bill then The House was familiar with many of the arguments.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid it would be possible to issue stock at eighty which would be a guarantee for as much as six and a half millions. The Committee ought to know whether they were to guarantee five millions or some larger sum.
MR. ASQUITHreplied that the actual arrangement made with the Transvaal was that our liability should not exceed five million pounds worth of stock, no matter at what price it was raised.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid that no one would quarrel with the reason the right hon. Gentleman had given for not discussing the matter at that stage. But would he tell them if the whole of the amount to be raised would be devoted to the matter which came under the Bill? Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer, between now and Monday, issue a Memorandum dealing with the question, and, as was the case with the Territorial Army Bill, distribute it with the Papers?
MR. ASQUITHsaid the Bill would be taken as the First Order on Monday, when the discusstil eleven o'clock if necessary. Papers had been printed, and would be issued on Tuesday or Wednesday.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he only raised the point because he felt that a loan of this great importance should not be passed without one word of discussion in the House, and he did not want the right hon. Gentleman to say, at two o'clock in the morning, that he had not had an opportunity of expressing his views.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday).
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th day of July last, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Four minutes after Two.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Metropolitan Water Board (Charges, etc.)
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Amendments made by the Committee of this House to the Armagh Urban District Council Bill ought not to be dispensed with, but that the Bill should be allowed to proceed provided that the words "continue to hold his said office until he die or resign or be removed by the council with the assent of the Board" be struck out of Clause 49A. The said Report to be considered to-morrow.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (General Powers) Bill.—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill.—Read 3a, and passed.
North Staffordshire Railway Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
City of London (Union of Parishes) Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Swansea Harbour Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

PETITIONS.

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I desire to present a petition
  678
  against the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill from a meeting of agriculturists held in Edinburgh on 8th July. At the same time I beg to give notice that, on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill to-morrow, I propose to move, "That this House, while anxious to encourage the formation of small holdings under reasonable conditions and to consider favourably such Amendment of the Acts relating to the tenure of crofter holdings as experience may have shown to be necessary, deprecates the indiscriminate and universal extension of the crofting system; sees no justification for establishing in Scotland a Land Court on the Irish model; and declines to proceed with a Bill which introduces into the agricultural districts of Scotland the evils which are inseparable from any system of divided ownership in land,"

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) [BILL.]
  Petitions against: Of North-East of Scotland Land Defence Association; Subscribers in the County of Ayr; Meeting at Kelsoe; Meeting at Corn Exchange, Edinburgh; Peebleshire Land Defence Association; Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and Associated Societies; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition in favour of: Of crofters, tradesmen, feuars, and cottars in Eastern District of Ross and Cromarty; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTION FOR PROPELLING POWER) BILL.
  Petition to be heard by Counsel for amendment of: Of Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Company; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
  Petitions to be heard by Counsel for amendment of: Of Pontypool and District Master Bakers', Millers,' and

  679
  Grocers' Association; Hertford, Ware, Hoddesdon, and District Grocers' Association; Chester Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Lisburn Grocers' Association; Wellingborough Grocers' Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Transvaal Loan Act, 1907, with papers respecting the finances of the Colony.
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
  Copy of the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Acts indicating the extensions and Amendments thereof proposed by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill as amended by the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills and on Report: Ordered to be laid before the House. (The Lord Hamilton of Dazell).
  TRAMWAY ORDERS.
  Report by the Board of Trade of their proceedings under the Tramways Act 1870, during the Session of 1907.
  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE (INDIAN SECTION).
  Annual Report for the year 1906–1907.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3891. France (Havre).
  No. 3892. Morocco (Dar-al-Baida).
  No. 3893. Morocco (Tangier).
  No. 3894. Netherlands (Curaçoa).
  No. 3895. Japan (Nagasaki).
  No. 3896. Japan.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1894 TO 1906.
  Return of all British and Foreign ships ordered by the Board of Trade, or its officers, during the period from 1st July, 1906, to 30th June, 1907, to be provisonally detained as unsafe (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 3138.]).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION (TREASURY MINUTES).
  Dated 6th August, 1907, granting a retired allowance to James Trotman Dean,
  680
  Chief Clerk, Engineer-in-Chiefs Department, Post Office, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887.
  Dated 7th August, 1907 declaring that John Crabtree, steam-hammer driver, Royal Gun Factory, War Office, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertance on the part of the head of his department.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Account of the receipts and expenditure of the Paymaster-General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in respect of the funds of suitors of the court in the year ended 28th February, 1907; also account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SCOTTISH BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, seeing the noble Lord who represents the Scottish Office in his place, I wish to ask him a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he can give the House the number of petitions, with the names of the parties petitioning, which have been received by the Scottish Office in favour of the establishment of a separate Board of Agricultural Commissioners for Scotland, and the number of petitions which have been lodged against it.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, the noble Earl has not given very long notice of this question, and I have come here with all the information I have been able to obtain on the subject. I cannot find that there are any petitions; but a limited number of resolutions have been forwarded to the Scottish Office, five of which are against the proposed transfer of powers and two in favour. The resolutions against the proposed transfer are from the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, the Highland and Agricultural Society, the Renfrewshire Agricultural Society,

  681
  the County Council of Ross and Cromarty, and the Association of County Councils; and those in favour are from the Fenwick Farmers' Society and the Glasgow Local Authority, being the executive under the Diseases of Animals Act.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 2:—
  Debate resumed on following Amendment—
  "In page 3, line 29, after the word 'withdrawn' to insert the words 'the Estate Commissioners or any two of them shall hear and by order determine.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, the Committee will remember that at the close of the sitting on Friday last the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, made a very clear and complete statement in continuation of the explanation of his group of Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2, all of which are framed with the same object—that is to say, the object of making arrangements for an appeal from the Estates Commissioners in various cases. The general effect of constituting an appeal of the character which the noble and learned Lord desires would be, in the first place, to throw upon the Estates Commissioners the burden of showing that no equally suitable land, apparently in any part of Ireland, could be found as that which they schedule for the purpose of taking over under the Bill; and that, in our opinion, would be a process causing an almost indefinite amount of delay, and one which would throw an unduly heavy burden on the Court of Appeal. Assuming it were decided in favour of the Estates Commissioners that the particular piece of land was necessary for their purpose, they would then have to proceed to negotiations on the question of value, again subject to a further appeal before the Court constituted by the noble and learned Lord's Amendment. Then there might be various
  682
  subsidiary matters of appeal. For instance, I suppose it would be a question of appeal whether the new tenant whom it was proposed to migrate really was a bona fide farmer working his farm in a husbandlike manner, according to the Amendment carried last Friday at the instance of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. Those various proceedings, in our opinion, would cause such an indefinite amount of delay as practically to defeat the objects of this Bill, which I need not repeat, because I have already on more than one occasion stated the view of the Government that this is an exceedingly urgent matter.
  Then, in addition to that, the noble and learned Lord provides that this Court of Appeal is to frame its judgments upon the principle of the Lands Clauses Act. Now, on the earlier Amendment I said something on the subject of the Lands Clauses Act, and I do not desire to repeat what I said then; but the point as it appears to me is this: Is it, or is it not, intended to be the invariable practice that sales effected under this Act are to be on a distinctly higher scale than the sales which have been already effected under the Act of 1903, because, if not, the application of the Lands Clauses Act appears to be at any rate unnecessary. So far as sales have proceeded already, or, at any rate, so far as the information which I have been able to get goes, the operations of the Act of 1903 have been as follows: Direct sales have averaged 26·7 years' purchase of second-term rents, and, with the bonus added, rather over twenty-seven and a half years' purchase. If the money so obtained can be invested at 3½ per cent. the effect is that the landowner receives 96 per cent. of the gross rental of his estates. As regards the estates bought by the Commissioners, the average has been 24·1 years' purchase of second-term rents, making, with the bonus added, 26·9 years That sum invested at 3½ per cent. produces 94·1 per cent. of the gross rental of the estate.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Does that include all sales? There are estates that have untenanted land, and land held under first term rents,

  683
  second term rents, and sometimes other tenures in addition. Are these averages brought out for all sales?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am not quite certain how that is. Of course, the majority of transactions have no doubt been second-term rents, but I will inquire exactly how that stands. I think one noble Lord opposite said that 3½ per cent. was a rate of interest which it could hardly be expected would be realised. It was pointed out that 75 per cent. of the land in Ireland was in settlement and therefore only trust investments were available for the purpose; but, as matters now stand, if a vendor should invest his money in Irish Land Stock at the price of that stock quoted in the paper to-day, he would get rather over 3¼ per cent. on his money even in that somewhat despised security. Therefore I ask—I have no doubt some noble Lord opposite will be able to tell us, or the noble and learned Lord himself perhaps may tell us—whether it is intended that the application of the Lands Clauses Act is to involve a distinctly higher rate of purchase than that, because I can only repeat what I said on the first occasion that, if that is so, it will practically be impossible for any transactions to take place. To increase the amount to any extent, owing to the fact that resales cannot be made even on existing terms, would practically tear the Bill in two and make it altogether an impossible measure. I think it was the noble and learned Lord who asked: Was it desired that the landlord should only get the reselling price? Of course not; obviously not. That is not what is intended, because not only is he to get the bonus but he is also to get, if it is necessary to make up the fair price to him, the further bonus which is dealt with under Clause 5.
  I pass to the question of the appeal upon value—the principle which, as the Committee will remember, we have admitted to be a not unreasonable one. We think it not unreasonable because, although we do not believe that practical injustice would follow, yet undoubtedly it does appear on the face of it that the Estates Commissioners, if they are not subject to an appeal, are made to be
  684
  Judges in a case in which they are an interested party, although they are, of course, acting in the public interest and not in their own personal interest. Consequently, we are not averse to the idea of an appeal on value; and the question is what is the best kind of court which can be arranged for this somewhat difficult purpose. The noble and learned Lord, in his Amendment, suggests that a Judge of Assize should sit for this purpose, but, as he very fairly pointed out, as such. Judges sit only twice a year, and considerable delay might be caused by the fact that they do not sit oftener, he gives us the alternative of power of application to a. Judge of the High Court, and he reminded the Committee that Section 24 of the Act of 1870 involved a similar provision. That, no doubt, is a precedent, but it was not a very long-lived precedent, because the provision was repealed by the Land Act of 1881, when the appeal was to the Land Commission; and, later, again, by the Act of 1903, appeals are to the Judicial Commissioner sitting with an expert assessor.
  As regards the question of a Judge of Assize or a Judge of the High Court we come back to a matter which led, if I may say so, on the last occasion to a rather amiable game of battledore and shuttlecock across the House on the point whether Judges have views; and there seemed to be, at any rate in the course of discussion of one measure or another, a disposition to believe that they have Well, my Lords, if particular views of different Judges are liable to be exercised in such a matter as this, I confess I think it would be a great misfortune. It is very desirable, if this Act is to be one transaction carried on through a limited period, that it should be carried on with as great a uniformity of practice as possible. I am not going to say a disrespectful word of any member of the Irish Bench Quite the contrary. But it is—I do not say it is in all cases a bad thing—the practice for Irish Judges to state their opinions on various public occasions with greater freedom than is customary in the case of their brethren on the English Bench, and they are, at any rate, popularly credited with holding strong views on matters which might come before them in this connection.

  685
  That, to my mind, points, therefore, not to leaving this matter to Judges of Assize or to Judges of the High Court, but to appointing one Judge to deal with this particular class of case; and I have no doubt that many more than one Judge might be found on the Irish Bench who would start with the confidence of all parties even in the decision of critical matters of this kind. I could name one learned Judge, a very near relative of the noble and learned Lord sitting on the Front Bench, who I know would obtain the confidence of all parties if he could be persuaded to undertake such duties as these. I name him as an instance, and I hope, therefore, that noble Lords opposite, in considering this whole question, will reflect whether it may not be more advisable on this question of an appeal on value to appoint' a single Judge than to leave it to the chance of a rota of assize. But perhaps I ought to add that we are no more persuaded than we were that it is advisable to have an appeal on any other subject than on this question of value. We do not believe it is possible for any Court to undertake the extraordinarily complicated series of questions which might be submitted to it if appeals were allowed on every possible point connected with this Bill.
  There is only one other point to which I wish to allude. Something was said, I think it was by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, in his speech on the Second Reading, with regard to the fact that Tents had been fixed in Ireland on no principle, and that consequently valuations of this kind would take place on no principle; and he quoted an admission to that effect by one of the members of the Estates Commission. I am bound to say I think that is an admission which every valuer would make, not merely in Ireland, but in all countries. Supposing the learned Gentleman had been asked, "Do you fix rents on principle?" and he had replied, "Yes," the next question would naturally have been, "On what principle?"; and I should like very much to know what the answer would have been. I thought it was common knowledge that in all matters of valuation the only principles upon which you can act are knowledge
  686
  and experience. There is no such thing as a principle, so far as I know, in fixing either the rental value of land or the value of anything else. A noble Lord is going, say, to buy a horse. A certain sum is asked for it—£100, £200, or £300—and in forming a judgment whether the animal is worth that sum he does not act on any principle; he acts on his knowledge and experience. And any land valuer in this country, and I imagine also in Ireland, if asked on what principle he valued land for purchase or for the purpose of rent would tell you he did so as the result of his general knowledge and experience of the subject, and also no doubt from such information as he could gain from the price of rents current in the particular neighbourhood. I say this because I do not wish it to be supposed that we agreed with the noble and learned Lord when he painted out that there was a certain unfitness in a man being allowed to value land for this purpose, who had made an admission of that kind with regard to the fixing of rents. I think I have, either on the first clause, or on this, covered the various points raised by the noble and learned Lord, and I only regret that we are not able to accept his Amendment.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid it was recognised now that there should be an appeal; and the points that remained open were as to the matters upon which there ought to be an appeal and the nature of the appellate tribunal. These two questions were of course, susceptible of differences of opinion; but they might be approached to see whether there could not be a common understanding come to in regard to them. The noble Lord admitted that the question of loss, compensation or price was a legitimate subject of apeal; but he shrank from allowing the tribunal to consider the question of the necessity. But there were other matters, such as the acquisition of untenanted land in the occupation of the landowner. Under Clause 6 there was a restriction on the acquisition of land. That was a question partly of law and partly of fact. Surely, if the provisions in that clause were violated there should be an appeal.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It certainly was our impression that Clause 6, even

  687
  before any Amendment was moved, would be subject to appeal under the provisions allowing appeals on points of law.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he supposed the noble Earl meant the reference to Clause 23 of the Act of 1903, under which there was power to take the opinion of the Judicial Commissioners. He assumed that all the topics included in Clause 6 that no land should be taken which formed part of demesne or home farm or the amenities of residence—were to be open to appeal. But all cases would not be covered by Section 23 of the Act of 1903, because there the Judicial Commissioner would only deal with matters that were reserved for him by written statement submitted by the Estates Commissioners. That was a dwarfed appeal; what was contemplated by his noble and learned friend Lord Atkinson was an open appeal, in open court and by an independent Judge, with the possibility of having witnesses examined and cross-examined. If a man's home farm was taken or the amenity of his residence destroyed, those were matters of first-class importance. It was no novelty that there should be appeals on such matters, for in Ireland under the Labourers Acts there had been appeals over and over again on the ground that cottages had been dumped down on the most inconvenient place for the owner. The final word in the matter ought not to be said by the Commissioners, but if necessary by an independent and impartial tribunal. It was necessary, too, in order to safeguard the position of the new tenants, men who might have led blameless lives as good and peaceable citizens for twenty-five years, and yet who might under this Bill by some mistake be turned out neck and crop at the bidding of the Commissioners. He noted that a novel power was to be taken in the last sub-section of Clause 3, I which would enable the Commissioners I to saddle the new holding of the new; tenant with all the charges, liabilities, and equities which affected the tenant's interest in the former holding, without any provision as to the requirement of consent; that also might legitimately be matter for appeal to an independent tribunal. An appeal on cost and com-
  688
  pensation would not be adequate to enable substantial justice to be done. As to the tribunal, he knew no earthly tribunal that gave satisfaction to everyone. He admitted that the selection of a tribunal was not easy, but the broad and general Amendment of his noble and learned friend would secure a Judge independent by his position, training, and knowledge. He thought there would I be a great advantage in appointing a. Judge of Assize. The Bill, mercifully, I could not go on for ever, although the noble Earl opposite seemed to linger I lovingly over the uncertainty of its-duration, and he saw no reason why the length of its operation should not be defined.
  LORD ATKINSONsaid that he was very anxious to meet the noble Earl on anything like a reasonable compromise, but if the Lord President meant that the only question to be considered on appeal was the question of value or amount of compensation, he could not accept it. There were many other questions which it might become necessary to consider, and he was, therefore, much afraid to accept an appeal on that one question alone. He felt bitter regret that the noble Earl had held out no prospect of bringing before the appellate tribunal the question as to whether there was any necessity for seizing the land. He had said that he did not mind what the tribunal was—what he wanted was that there should be some review of the Commissioners' decision. The Government had chosen to place in the Estates Commissioners absolutely autocratic power to take any property they liked, It was by no means necessary that the difficulty referred to by the noble Earl should be created. He would be the last to say that for every individual case and every bit of land taken the Commissioners should have the trouble of going to the Lord-Lieutenant in Council, supposing that to be the body selected to approve of putting the compulsory powers into force, for permission. Schemes might be presented which included a county or large portions of a county He wanted to secure either at one end of the procedure or the other that there should be some revision of the Commissioners' decision. It was intolerable

  689
  that in secret and without giving any reason to anyone they should be able to take any man's land. Would the noble Earl consider if there could not be some inquiry so as to prevent this being a vicious anomaly in the whole legislation dealing with this subject?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I think it is desirable as much as possible to avoid confusion in the discussion of this very intricate Bill—intricate, though not of very large compass. I understand that the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken now suggests that the Estates Commissioners might draw up schemes including a county or a portion of a county, and that in that event it would not be necessary to have an appeal upon each particular case, which I should greatly deprecate. I think I rightly interpret the broad view that was put by the noble and learned Lord—that if a scheme were propounded for a large area and received the imprimatur of the Privy Council, there would then be an end to all appeal in regard to the question of necessity so far as that particular area was concerned. I do not wish to fall short in recognition of the spirit which I believe animates the noble and learned Lord in this matter. It is difficult to discuss a proposal until one sees it on the Paper, and if the proposal is put forward I am sure my noble friend the Lord President will examine it to see whether any practical result can accrue from it. But the noble and learned Lord's latest suggestion is absolutely incompatible with his Amendment before the Committee. Let us see what the Amendment before the Committee is. It is largely consequential upon a decision already arrived at. The Amendment says—
  "Any person aggrieved by any order of the Commissioners may appeal."
  In the first place what is to be the tribunal? My noble friend behind me: said, in effect, that, we were quite prepared to give an appeal on the subject of value. Let us see to whom that appeal is to be. My noble friend suggested a selected Judge upon the ground that Judges might be "viewy," and I think he indicated a very distinguished Judge who is not, or was not when I sat
  690
  in the House of Commons, of our way of thinking, but in whom we have every confidence—Mr. Justice Gibson. I rather gathered that the noble and learned Lord did not think that a fair offer.
  LORD ATKINSON: I should have thought any one Judge would experience immense difficulty in travelling all over the country.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: One Judge was suggested, at all events. What was to be the subject-matter of appeal? The point of value was the subject-matter to which the noble Earl the Lord President referred; and upon the question whether the exercise of the power was just or reasonable, I put it to noble Lords whether you could take this issue in regard to every particular plot, and every particular application. But that is the Amendment now before the Committee. We have pointed out that we must object to that course, which would choke up the Commission and obstruct the business altogether. The same applies to other questions of a kindred character. The point whether there is to be compensation or market value has been settled by an Amendment already carried. As to the proposal that the Estates Commissioners shall be competent but not compellable witnesses, we cannot consent to that. I would point out that they are judicial persons, after all, in many of their functions, and it has always been the policy of this country not to allow persons exercising judicial functions to be called as witnesses and cross-examined as to their reasons for exercising their particular discretion. These are the substantial parts of the Amendment. The first part of Clause 6 prohibits the Estates Commissioners from taking particular described land, and if they try to take those lands they will be stopped by prohibition. It is our intention that they should be, and I think they would. If it were established that this restriction on the acquisition of certain lands was being contravened, the ordinary Courts would have ample jurisdiction to say it was ultra vires, and the Estates Commissioners could be prohibited from proceeding. As regards the latter part of

  691
  Clause 6 as to the exercise of discretion by the Estates Commissioners, I agree that it would not come within the rules as regards prohibition; but I am afraid we could not make it different. But that is a matter which will come up for discussion when Clause 6 is reached. As to the question of the new tenant, if your Lordships look at the words in which the Amendment inserted on Friday at the instance of Lord Robertson is shaped, you will find that the Court would be at liberty to prohibit any interference with a new tenant. However, that is a matter which may afterwards be considered. I have endeavoured to deal with the substance of the Amendment, but it is difficult and complicated, and I cannot help thinking that the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Crewe, giving an appeal on the question of the value of the land, is sufficient for the purpose, and to go any further would really make the Bill impracticable.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: What about the new tenant? Is he not to have an appeal?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had already said that the Amendment relating to new tenants which was inserted on the Motion of Lord Robertson would cover that. If the Estates Commissioners, in the face of that prohibition, tried to take such land, it is obvious that the Court would stop them.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Would a new tenant, with, it may be, ten acres, be expected to sue a writ of prohibition at his own expense in the superior courts to save his status?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can hardly imagine the Act being defied. If any question is to be raised in regard to giving cheap facilities to prevent the defiance of the Act, it is a matter which ought to be put forward in an Amendment and would be considered. It was not from the point of view of the means of the particular person, but of the legal position, that I was addressing the Committee.
  LORD ATKINSONsaid that if he got any assurance from the Government that they would adopt an Amendment providing
  692
  for schemes to be approved by the Privy Council, he would jettison his clause giving an appeal on the question of necessity.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think we can scarcely be expected to give any promise with regard to an Amendment we have not seen. My noble and learned friend explained it very clearly, but that is not the same thing as seeing it in black and white. If the noble and learned Lord will put his alternative suggestion on the Paper we will give it our best consideration.
  LORD ATKINSON: In that case I shall not throw over my Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I never contemplated that the noble Lord would do so.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid he thought Lord Atkinson's offer was a fair one, and he did not see why they should not come to some arrangement. They must insist upon an appeal on fact, value, and compensation.
  LORD HEMPHILLsaid it seemed to him that the Bill as it stood furthered the main intention of the Legislature in the best way. The great object was to settle this question as speedily as possible. If ever the maxim bis dat qui cito dat applied, it applied to the case of the evicted tenants, and no one knew better than the noble and learned Lord who advocated so strongly the Amendment before the Committee that the appellate tribunal suggested would involve great delay and considerable cost. On whom the costs were to fall had not been in any way adumbrated. Why there should be an appeal in this particular case it was hard to see. The tribunal contemplated by the Bill was a tribunal of three gentlemen who had had more experience of the valuing of land and the circumstances of the country than any other men in Ireland. They had been for fifteen years acting as Commissioners, and it had been conceded by every noble Lord who had spoken that they were men of high honour and integrity, and wholly disinterested as between landlord and tenant. He could not conceive a tribunal more

  693
  likely to come to a fair conclusion than the Estates Commissioners.
  The Bill was an anomalous Bill, he admitted; it was a peculiar Bill, because it restored to their farms men who had been evicted, some lately and some many years ago, the victims of circumstances, and it might displace men who themselves were meritorious. But their Lordships had, by giving the Bill a Second Reading, admitted that that principle was right, and they had now to deal only with details. If the principle were wholly wrong, of course their Lordships would have rejected the measure on Second Reading. They were now considering how best to carry out the objects of the Legislature. It had been suggested by noble Lords on the Government side of the House that it was reasonable that there should be some appeal, and in the few observations which he would make he would assume that appeal to be limited to the value of the land and to the question of compensation. With regard to what should be the appellate tribunal, they had ample precedent. In the case of the compulsory taking of land by railways, so familiar to their Lordships, the law was governed in Ireland by the Railway (Ireland) Act, 1851—he thought that was the year—the appeal there being to a Judge of Assize to be tried before a jury. In the original Act there was no provision made for a special jury but by a subsequent Act cither party might have the question tried by a Judge of Assize and a special jury, and by another Act the venue might be changed, at the instance of either party, if there was any suggestion that there might be partiality on the part of the jurors to one side or the other. That Act had worked fairly and well, so far as the taking of land compulsorily for public purposes went. Why should not that principle, if there must be an appeal, apply in this case? Were noble Lords to assume that all Irish tribunals were more or less tainted with corruption or partiality? Were they not at liberty to suppose that the Judges on the Bench and the jurors in the jury box acted under a sense of responsibility, and with some regard to the oaths they had taken? He thought that in legislation they were bound to act on that assumption. There was another tribunal suggested by the
  694
  Land Acts. Under the Act by which fair rents were fixed between landlord and tenant, which, of course, was a measure as seriously affecting the interests of the landlords as any Act of Parliament ever passed, there was an appeal from the decision of the Land Commissioners or the Assistant Land Commissioners. To whom was that appeal? It was to the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Court. The Judicial Commissioner of the Land Court had the same status and the same salary as the Judges of the High Court, to whom it was suggested by the Amendment that the appeal should lie, but he had an advantage over the Judges of the High Court. No one had a more profound admiration than he had for every single member of the Bench in Ireland, knowing as he did their ability and their anxiety to administer justice. But the Judge of the Land Court, Mr. Justice Wylie, had, from the functions which he had to discharge, the means of dealing with these questions—namely, the value of the land, the compensation to be given, and, it might be, how far necessity arose for putting into power the compulsory provisions of the Bill. On all those matters he would be a competent Judge. An appeal in the cases of 2,000 evicted tenants would disorganise the Assize Courts, and would be quite impracticable. If there was to be an appeal, he respectfully submitted that there could be no reasonable objection to its being made to Mr. Justice Wylie, the Judicial member of the Land Court, who had, under the Land Purchase Act of 1903, the power to add a valuator assessor in order to aid him.
  It had been suggested by Lord Atkinson that schemes might be prepared something like the schemes under the Labourers Act, and that there should be an appeal to the Lord-Lieutenant and the Privy Council in Dublin. That system was found to work so imperfectly that, in the Labourers Act of last year, the appeal to the Lord-Lieutenant in Council under the previous Act was repealed, and the appeal now was to the County Court Judge. He felt very anxious that this Bill in its main principles should become law. He believed it would be instrumental, more than anything else in their power, in producing

  695
  some sort of rest and quiet in Ireland. They could not arrive at perfection in a country so full of anomalies as Ireland. If in their anxiety to attain perfection their Lordships hampered this Bill with impracticable clauses, the Bill would be rejected in the other House, and those wretched evicted tenants who had been hoping against hope for years would be again disappointed, and there would be fresh incitement to disorder in Ireland.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the Committee, I cannot help thinking, finds itself in a somewhat perplexing position with regard to this Amendment, a perplexity which is increased owing to the fact that this question of the appeal which may be had under the Bill is that upon which we on this side feel more strongly than we do, upon almost any other question within the compass of the Government's proposals, I hope I am not wrong in believing that we have this evening made, perhaps not much progress, but at any rate some progress in the direction of an understanding.
  The announcement of the noble Earl the Lord President that his Majesty's Government freely admit the right to an appeal on the question of compensation is, in itself, very important; but I think I shall not do him an injustice when I say that we gathered from what fell from him this evening that in his view it was not unreasonable to ask for an appeal on something more than the mere money question. I am inclined to press that, because I notice very often in the speeches made by noble Lords opposite and their friends with regard to the many agrarian questions now before Parliament that it is assumed that the landlord's interest in his property, or in that which has hitherto been regarded as his property, begins and ends with the rent he gets from it. That is a great and fundamental fallacy.
  I understood the suggestion of the Lord President to be that, in reference to such questions as might arise under Clause 6 of this Bill, there is already an appeal under the 23rd Section of the Act of 1903. Under that section any question of law may, if the Estates Commissioners think fit, on the application of any person
  696
  interested, be referred to the decision of the Judicial Commissioner. I am not learned in these matters, nor do I know exactly what is the procedure followed before the Judicial Commissioner, but I am strongly under the impression that an appeal of this kind would not be to the full extent the kind of appeal desired by my noble friends who sit behind me. It would not be usual, for example, for the Judicial Commissioner to hear witnesses. I understand my noble friends to desire a full appeal which would give a complete opportunity to a person who considered himself aggrieved to obtain a revision of what he believed to be a wrongful decision of the Estates Commissioners.
  While pressing this as strongly as I can, I trust noble Lords opposite will not suppose that on this side of the House we desire to push this claim to an unreasonable extent. For example, the I Lord President in his opening remarks said it would be unreasonable to require, a proof in every case that no equally suitable land was to be found in any part of Ireland. I am bound to say that I agree with the Lord President. I do not think it would be fair and practicable in every case that you should put upon I the Estates Commissioners the onus of saying that nowhere in the whole circumference of the country was there some other place upon which a tenant who was to be reinstated could be planted. If a procedure of that kind were to be encouraged you would, as has been truly said, expose yourselves, to an infinite amount of delay, to congestion of the business of the Appeal Court, and to an indefinite postponement of that final settlement which we should all like to expedite as much as we possibly can. But we do, on the other hand, desire that as to those questions which arise under the 6th. Clause, and also as to all questions arising; in connection with the removal of those tenants whom we usually speak of as, planters, there should be a full appeal and an open inquiry.
  At this moment we are in this position. No fewer than four alternatives are under discussion—the proposal of the Bill, the elaborate Amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Atkinson, the alternative proposal sketched to us by

  697
  the Lord President of the Council, and the outline of another alternative which my noble and learned friend has suggested, and is ready to put upon the Paper for the consideration of the Committee. Of these alternatives, two only are before the Committee in a shape in which we can appreciate them—that of the Bill and Lord Atkinson's Amendment. We cannot accept the Bill as it now stands, and, therefore, in my humble opinion, our duty is to insert Lord Atkinson's Amendment in the Bill as embodying at any rate for the time being what seems to us to be the best way of dealing with this important question. Then, at a later stage, if my noble and learned friend has something better to proprose, or if noble Lords opposite have something else to propose which we can see our way to entertain, let us by all means alter the Bill again. That, it seems to me, is the only course really open to us this evening.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I merely rise to say that we shall not trouble the Committee to divide on Lord Atkinson's Amendment, for we regard it as consequential to that which was made on Friday; we will only say "Not content."
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): The actual Amendment before the Committee is to leave out the word "withdraw," in line 29, and to insert the words, "the Estates Commissioners or any two of them shall hear and by order determine."
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ATKINSONthen moved the insertion of his proposed new Subsection (8).
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 30, to leave out from the word 'thereon' to the end of Subsection (7); and in line 34, after the word 'conclusive' to insert the following new subsection:—
  "In line 30, to leave out from the word 'thereon' to the end of Subsection (7)."
  "In line 34, after the word 'conclusive' to insert the following new subsection:—"(8) (a) Any person aggrieved by any order of the Estates Commissioners made upon the hearing of any such petition as aforesaid may, within the time and in the manner prescribed by rules
  698
  to be made as hereinafter provided, apply as he-shall elect, either to the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, or to the Judges of Assize for the county in which the lands sought to be acquired, or the greater part thereof, are situated, to hear and determine any question of law or fact arising out of any such petition or order. Every such application shall be heard and determined by one of the Judges of Assize for the said county, or by-one of the Judges of the King's Bench Division, to be selected by the said Judges according to a rota to be framed by them at the commencement of each sitting of the said High Court. Upon the hearing of every such application the Judge shall have power and authority to hear and determine all questions of law and fact that may arise, including the adequacy of the compensation awarded by said order, and in particular the question whether, upon the facts and circumstances proved in evidence before him, the compulsory acquisition of the lands in said petition or order mentioned was just and reasonable, and he may give judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the said order of the Estates Commissioners, and may make such order as to the costs of and incidental to the said petition, and the hearing of the said application, as he may think fit: (b) Upon the hearing of every such application the said. Judge shall have the jurisdiction, power, and authority possessed by a Judge of the High Court of Justice in Ireland when presiding at a trial at Nisi Prius, including the power to administer an oath, and to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. He shall also have the power to direct that an independent valuer, to be nominated by him, should report to him his opinion upon any matter the Judge may think fit to refer to him, and he may make such order in reference to the costs of any such report as he may deem just (c) In the determination of any question as to the adequacy of the compensation offered, the Judge shall have regard to the principles of the provsions of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, applicable to the compulsory purchase of land, and for the purposes of the said application before the said Judge, the Estates Commissioners shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking within the meaning of the said Act: (d) The Estates Commissioners shall be competent, but not compellable witnesses upon the hearing of every such application, and they shall furnish to the Judge hearing the same alt such particulars and documents as shall by him be required, including a schedule in the form prescribed by section seven of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1903, together with a statement of the superior interests, if any, to which the lands sought to be acquired, or the estate of which they form a part, may be subject: (e) The inspectors and other officers of the Land Commission, other than the Land. Commissioners themselves, shall be competent and compellable witnesses upon the hearing of every such application: (f) The said King's Bench Division and the Judges of Assize, respectively, may order that all applications pending before them in respect of the same petition or order as aforesaid may be consolidated, and heard together, and for the more convenient, speedy, or proper hearing of any

  699
  such applications, may order that the hearing of same may be transferred from the said Division to the Judges of Assize, or from the Judges of Assize to that Division, as the case may be, and the said application, when so transferred, shall be heard and determined as if it had originally been made to the tribunal to which it has been transferred: (g) The Judge before whom any such application is heard may, where he deems it expedient, reserve any question or matter arising upon such application, by way of ease stated, for the consideration of His Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland: (h) All cases stated for the Court of Appeal shall be prosecuted, heard, and determined by such Court in such manner and form, and subject to such rules and regulations as the Court may from time to time by rules direct. The said Court of Appeal shall give such judgment as ought to have been given in the Court below by the Judge thereof, and such judgment shall be of the like effect as if it had been the judgment of the said Judge, or the said Court of Appeal may remit the case with such directions as they think fit to the Court below: (i) In the interval between the lodging of any such application to the Judges of Assize and the opening of the Assizes for the county in which such application is to be heard, the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland shall, on the motion in the prescribed manner of the applicant, the Estates Commissioners, or any party interested, have jurisdiction, power, and authority to make any order of an interlocutory nature in the matter of said application, as if same was an action at law pending in the said division: (j) The provisions of section twenty-three of the Irish Land Act, 1903, shall apply to this Act so far as the same are not inconsistent with the provisions of the latter. Provided that a question of law which has been decided by a Judge of the High Court or of Assize, or by the Court of Appeal under the provisions of this Act shall not, after the date of such decision, be referred for decision to the Judicial Commission, nor while a question of Jaw is awaiting decision in any application pending before such a Judge, shall the same question of law be referred for decision to the Judicial Commission, unless at the request of some person who is neither a party to nor interested in the matter of the said application. (k) The compensation to be paid to any owner of land in respect of the loss thereof shall for the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts be deemed to be the price to be paid for his purchase therein: (l) Rules of Court regulating and prescribing the practice, procedure, and the costs of and incidental to the hearing of all proceedings under this section before the King's Bench Division, or any Judge thereof, or any "Judge of Assize, may be made by the authority having power to make Rules of Court for the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BARRYMORE LORD BARRYMORE moved the addition of the following as a new subsection: "In addition to any compensation to be awarded to the owner under
  700
  this section, the Estates Commissioners, or the Judge on Appeal, shall have power to award such sum as may appear reasonable in respect of any arrears of rent due by the tenant at the date of the eviction, or in respect of any money paid to the tenant in respect of his interest or goodwill in the lands." He said that it was only fair and reasonable that in relation to compensation such matters should at least be taken into consideration. The arrears were often allowed to accumulate, and when, for one cause or another, the tenants went, the arrears were forgiven them and advances were sometimes made to assist them. In some cases these ex-tenants had received pensions for life. There were, besides those, cases where the landlord had actually bought the tenant-right when the tenant wished to go, and had been ever since occupying and working the land himself. Under this Bill it would be possible for the Estates Commissioners to take that land and pay the landlord what appeared to be the market price of the land, but he would entirely forfeit the money he had paid to the out-going tenant for the tenant-right, and would thereby be a considerable loser by the transaction. It would be obviously unjust, both to the landlord and the neighbouring tenants, that a man should be returned, after an interval of years, to an improved holding, no account being taken of the arrears of rent or the earlier assistance he had received. This was a matter which came before the Mathew Commission in 1893, and there was a provision to meet it in the Bill of 1894, a small Commission of two gentlemen having power, in eases where large arrears were due, to grant to the landlord some portion of those arrears—he thought the amount was not to exceed one year's rent. It was exceedingly hard that the landlord should not only have his land taken compulsorily, but should be mulcted in these sums. In his Amendment he was only asking for what was fair. The subsection was permissive and not mandatory, and he hoped the Government would favourably consider it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 34, after the word 'conclusive' to insert the following new subsection: '(8) In addition to any compensation

  701
  to be awarded to the owner under this section, the Estates Commissioners, or the Judge on Appeal, shall have power to award such sum as may appear reasonable in respect of any arrears of rent due by the tenant at the date of the eviction, or in respect of any money paid to the tenant in respect of his interest o goodwill in the lands."—(Lord Barrymore.)
  THE EARL OF MEATHsupported the Amendment. They had been told that the whole of the agrarian legislation in Ireland had been due to the fact that Irish landlords, as a general rule, did not, as English landlords did, build the farmhouse and the labourers' cottages. That was true as a general proposition, but there were important exceptions to that rule. In his county many of the landlords had conducted their estates in exactly the same manner as English landlords. For instance, thousands of pounds had been spent in this way by Lord Fitzwilliam and by other landlords, and farmhouses and labourers' cottages had been built on his (Lord Meath's) estate by his ancestors and by himself; but the value of these houses and cottages had never been taken into consideration by the Land Commissioners in fixing the rents. They had held that all they had to consider was the value of the land to the tenant, and that the value of the land was not enhanced by the tenant having a good house built for him or a good farmstead. Something might be said, the Commissioners thought, in regard to farm buildings, but they held that there was no advantage to the tenant in having a good house. Landlords on English-managed estates strongly objected to that doctrine. They maintained that the tenant was put in good heart by having a good house over his head, and was much better on than a man who had to live in a leaky hovel. Thousands and thousands of pounds had been expended by Irish landlords in this way which had not been taken into consideration. The noble Lord (Lord Barrymore) alluded to cases where amicable evictions had taken place. In many of these eases the large amounts owing in rent were forgiven, and a sum of money was handed to the tenant on leaving. That money could not be said to be in any way due to the tenant. It had often happened on his (Lord Meath's) estate, when a man had been unable
  702
  to pay his rent, that he had been advised to give him £150 or £200 and let him go with the feeling that there was no grievance. That had often occurred in Ireland. Yet in this Bill there was no chance of the landlord ever getting this money back, although he-might have the evicted tenant, who had received this sum of money, placed again in possession of the same farm. Over and over again tenants had deliberately allowed gorse to grow over parts of their farms in the hope of profiting by the ignorance of the Land Commissioners who went down to value them. The Commissioners found that half the farm had been allowed to grow up in gorse and said: "What, £30 a year for that? Why, it is not worth more than. £15 a year!" That was quite true, but it was through the fault of the tenant. When the tenant went out that land was thrown upon the landlord's hands, and he (Lord Meath) had over and over again paid £7 an acre to get the gorse off the land before he could let it again or take it into his own hands. He thought it was hard that landlords, who had spent very large sums of money on these tenants in order to prevent friction, should have them thrust back on their hands without the slightest compensation for the expense to which they had been put.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, but will be satisfied with having drawn attention to what he considers a certain number of hard cases. So far as I know, there is no precedent of any kind for including arrears of rent in a matter of this kind. The burden thrown upon the Treasury would be absolutely unknown and would make transactions under the Act in such a case practically impossible If a number of years' arrears of rent had to be found the difference between the purchase price and the price at which the land could possibly be resold would be so great that it would make the call upon the bonus or whatever fund was to be drawn upon so great that the Estates Commissioners certainly could not venture to engage in the transaction. It seems to me very difficult to go beyond the principle that the land is purchased as it is. So far as regards the cases

  703
  mentioned by Lord Meath and Lord Barrymore where a farm has been left in bad heart and has been put into good heart by the landlord, I conceive that if a farm was in very good condition when purchased that fact would be borne in mind in fixing the purchase price. It stands to reason that it would. As regards the cases where tenant-right has been bought there was a similar complaint, as many noble Lords will remember, after the Laud Act of 1881 Some landlords in Ulster, who had spent considerable sums in purchasing tenant-right, felt themselves aggrieved by the provisions of Mr. Gladstone's Act. I have no means of knowing how far cases where the purchase of tenant-right has taken place are of common occurrence. The whole of the transactions under this Bill will be very limited in number, and I certainly think it would be open to the landlord, in representing his case to the Estates Commissioners, to draw attention to a fact of that kind, with a view to dissuading them from taking a particular farm. I am afraid it is impossible for us to deal with the matter in the Bill, and I trust the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid that on his estate thirteen tenants had been evicted since 1880. The arrears ranged from two to twelve years' rent. In each case compensation was paid to the tenant.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Is that all now untenanted land?
  LOAN INCHIQUIN: Yes.
  THE EARL OF CREWE.: Then the noble Lord will get a higher price for it than if it were tenanted.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: But shall I? That is what I want to know. Continuing, the noble Lord said he was now farming all this land—5,000 acres in extent—and had it in good heart. Last year he put up to auction a meadow of sixty acres on one farm, the buyer having to cut the hay and take it away. The price obtained averaged £6 10s. an acre; yet the former tenant could not
  704
  pay £2 an acre. In every case a large sum of money was due when the tenant went out; in every case compensation was paid; and in every case he had spent a considerable sum of money in putting the land in good heart. If it were taken by the Estates Commissioners, was he to get no compensation for the £2,982 arrears of rent and the money he had expended?
  Viscount MIDLETONthought the noble Earl the Lord President hardly did justice to the number of cases which would be affected by the considerations which Lord Inchiquin had just mentioned. The noble Earl appeared to be under the impression that these would be somewhat isolated cases and would be sufficiently dealt with by his statement that a higher price would be given where the tenant-right was in the hands of the landlord. But there was no indication of that on the face of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It has undoubtedly been the practice hitherto.
  Viscount MIDLETONthought the difficulty would be the same as under the Land Act of 1881. He would cite one case as showing how very important this question was to some landlords. Lord Ashtown farmed nearly 4,000 acres in county Galway. That immense tract of land had been farmed by the landlord for sixty years. Quite apart from the fact that there were between 100 and 200 labourers employed permanently and that a very large sum was spent in wages on the estate, the whole of that land would be open to the Commissioners for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants. Lord Ashtown could prove that he had spent £12,000 on buildings and permanent improvements on the land. How was he to be recouped this sum? The noble Lord said, "By some increase of rent," but that was by no means certain. The evidence of Mr. Commissioner Finucane was clear on the point that the whole of the untenanted land in Galway would require to be taken. Surely landlords who also held the tenants' interest and could prove an expenditure of that magnitude had some right to consideration. As the noble Marquess the Leader of the

  705
  Opposition had pointed out, the interest of a landlord in his property did not begin and end in the rent he obtained from it. He hoped the Lord President would see his way to put into the Bill guiding words to the Estates Commissioners indicating that it was the feeling of Parliament that where both interests were in the hands of the landlord they should have regard to that fact.
  LORD DENMANsaid there was no precedent for paying the owner, in addition to the value of his land, sums in respect of arrears of rent and money paid for goodwill, and they knew that noble Lords opposite paid very great attention to precedent in regard to this Bill. He pointed out that under Lord Atkinson's Amendment, which was put into the Bill, the high rate of compensation allowed by the Lands Clauses Act was to be paid to the landlord.
  LORD BARRYMORE: Will that provision be left in the Bill?
  LORD DENMANsaid that so far as the Government were concerned he believed it would not, but, as the Bill now stood, it contained compensation under the Lands Clauses Act, and if arrears of rent were added as well the rate of compensation would be very high indeed. As to the point mentioned by Lord Inchiquin, he (Lord Denman)
  was not an authority on these matters, but he had read the evidence of Mr. Commissioner Finucane before the Congested Districts Commission—and he presumed the same principle would apply in the case of evicted tenants—in which he said that in his opinion five years purchase of the valuation for untenanted land should be given in excess of what would be given for tenanted land of the same value.
  LORD CLONBROCKsaid that this was not always the practice of the Commissioners. He instanced the case of the Lewis estate, in county Galway. The lady to whom that estate belonged had offered to sell two farms to the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of reinstating the evicted tenants, but the Commissioners had only offered eighteen years, and a half purchase of the rent without making any allowance whatever for the occupation interest which belonged to her; and eighteen years and a half purchase was three years purchase less than the average of first-terra rents in that part of the country. Therefore whatever evidence had been given they could not get away from the fact that the practice had not been to offer the amount stated.
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 151; Not-Contents, 39.

  CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Dartrey, E.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Argyll, D

  Derby, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Northumberland, D.

  Devon, E.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

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

  Westmeath, E.

  Sutherland, D.

  Wicklow, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Egerton, E.

  Eldon, E.

  Churchill, V.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Fitzwilllam, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Camden, M.

  Haddington, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Hertford, M.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Ilchester, E.

  Hampden, V.

  Zetland, M.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Lindsey, E.

  Hill, V.

  Ancaster, E.

  Londesborough, E.

  Hood, V.

  Bandon, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Mayo, E. [Teller.]

  Cathcart, E.

  Morton, E.

  Templetown, V.

  Cawdor, E.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Northesk, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Addington, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Plymouth, E.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Romney, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Darnley, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Dunleath, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess borough.)

  Barrymore, L. [Teller.]

  Ellenborough, L.

  Basing, L.

  Escourt, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Belper, L.

  Faber, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Braye, L.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Rathdonnell, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Forester, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Burton, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Carew, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Kelvin, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  St. Oswald, L.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Kensington, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Langford, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Clifford, of Chudleigh, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Cloncurry, L.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Collins, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Lurgan, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  De Freyne, L.

  Massy, L.

  Templemore, L.

  De L' Isle and Dudley, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Teynham, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Deramore, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Desborough, L.

  Newlands, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Digby, L.

  Newton, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  North, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Dunalley, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

  Lyveden, L.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Denman, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

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

  Pirrie, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Rendel, L.

  Eversley, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Craven, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

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

  Swaythling, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Allendale, L.

  Headley, L.

  Welby, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Herschell, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO said the object of the proviso standing in his name on the Paper was to meet the case of an evicted tenant who was put back on an estate which was in the hands of tenants who had not purchased. Under the clause as it stood, when the evicted tenant was put back he returned under the same status as a tenant who had bought under the Act of 1903, and therefore his rent was much lower and he was in a much better position than the other tenants. The noble Earl the Lord President would, he thought, agree that that tenant would be very much envied by other tenants, who were likely to "make themselves not at all pleasant to the landlord and to force him to sell his
  708
  estate at a price below that at which he would be willing to sell. He hoped the noble Earl would see the injustice of the present provision and accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 38, after the word 'order' to insert the words 'Provided always that in every case in which the owner of the said land shall, by notice in writing to the Estates Commissioners within the prescribed time, so require, the person or persona whom it is proposed to place in possession of said lands shall be placed there with the status of present tenants instead of purchasers, and shall from the date of being so placed in possession be subject to such rent as the Land Commission, failing agreement between the owner and such person or persons, may upon the application of either

  709
  party determine to be the fair rent of such land pursuant to the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, 1881 to 1896.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am not unconscious of the possibility of the difficulty raised by the noble Lord occurring in certain cases. It might, no doubt, happen that on an estate where no purchase had taken place an evicted tenant might be restored under terms as a purchaser, which, like those of other purchasers, would be lower than those of an ordinary tenant. I should hope that the more natural result would be that the remaining tenants, seeing the advantage gained by a purchaser, to a large extent at the expense of the British taxpayer, would desire to purchase likewise, and would conclude matters with their landlord. The Amendment of the noble Earl is an impossible one to accept, for this reason, that if it were accepted and ah evicted tenant came back with the status of a present tenant he would return probably penniless, and there would be no means of supplying him with any funds whatever. Funds can only be supplied to purchasing tenants, and to put the evicted tenant, who had been out for a long time and had no money, back on a farm without stock would he to ensure his future ruin, with the probability, or almost certainty, that he would be evicted again in a short time because he would not be in a position to pay his rent. I hope that, in the circumstances, the Amendment will not be pressed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK moved to insert a new clause after Clause 2. He explained that he originally had a proposal down that a register should be kept which should be accessible to the public, but it was represented to him that the process now suggested in his proposed new clause, and which was in accordance with that followed under the Purchase Acts, would be far better. This proposal was only really an extension, mutatis mutandis, of the provisions of Sections 32 and 33 of the Irish Land Act, 189L He thought it was only reasonable that
  710
  the same publication should be made under the present Bill as was provided for under the Act of 1891.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:—(1) The Estates Commissioners shall publish particulars of all cases in which an evicted tenant, or a person nominated by them to be the personal representative of a deceased evicted tenant, has been or may be hereafter, with their assistance, restored to his former holding or provided with a new holding under the Irish Land Act, 1903, or this Act: (2) Such particulars shall be in the form of a quarterly return, which shall be laid before Parliament forthwith, and shall contain such particulars of each case as may be prescribed by rules made by the Lord-Lieutenant, including the particulars set forth in the schedule to this Act."—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We have no objection to this Amendment if the noble Lord will allow these words to be added at the end of the sub-section, "if and so far as it may be practicable to furnish the same."
  LORD CLONBROCK: I accept that addition.
  Clause 3:—
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM THE EARL OF LEITRIM moved an Amendment to provide that, where the Estates Commissioners served notice to quit upon any new tenant, the date for his occupation to cease should not be less than six months from the date of service of the notice "and ending on the first day of November then next ensuing." He pointed out that if the notice of six months were given in December it would be very hard for a man to have to leave in May or June, and probably he would not be able to take another farm just then. He submitted that the Government should either agree to one year's notice being given, or else uphold the usual farming practice by arranging that the planters should leave their holdings at a suitable time of the year.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 3, after the word 'thereof' to insert the words 'and ending on the first day of November then next ensuing.'"—(The Earl of Leitrim.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, so far as the noble Earl has in view the inconvenience and possible hardship of causing tenants to leave their holdings at all times of the year we are quite with him. We think it is perfectly reasonable that tenants should only leave at ordinary times, but as regards the possibility of greatly extending the notice and giving a longer time we should not be disposed to meet him. We should be willing to accept the Amendment in these words—
  "And ending either on the first day of May or the first day of November."
  There are a good many holdings, I conceive, where the month of May would be more convenient for the transfer than the month of November. I do not see the precise force or value of the words "then next ensuing." All that we desire is that the removal should be at a reasonable and convenient time for the tenants.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the object of his noble friend Lord Leitrim was to ensure that the men on whom the notices were served would not have to quit before they had had an opportunity of taking away their crops and having the value of the year. He was afraid that would not be saved by giving the alternative of May, and if such an alternative were put in it should be at the option of the tenant.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The month of November would not suit a grazing farmer very well, and May would probably suit him a great deal better. It is intended that the period of the year should be convenient to the tenant.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Will the noble Earl insert the words "at the option of the tenant"?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I will think about that.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMaccepted the form of words suggested by the Lord President, subject to reconsideration on Report.
  LORD BARRYMOREproposed an Amendment that where the Commissioners offered to a new tenant another farm of not less value they should "at the same time offer to such new tenant such sum as may be reasonably necessary to cover any expense or loss incidental to the removal of himself and his family as well as of his crops, stock, and chattels, to such parcel of land." Where a tenant was forced to remove, it was only reasonable, and in accordance with practice, to pay the expense of his removing. It would be a great hardship on the planters turned out of their holdings to have to incur the expense of moving, and suffer serious loss in the sale of their stock. He had a similar Amendment in line 19, and as they were on all fours, he hoped the Government would consider them at the same time and accept them both. In the case of a planter who was obliged to move to some other place it was pretty certain that his sale of stock would be boycotted. As an act of justice to poor men he hoped his Amendment would be accepted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 14, after the word 'holding' to insert the words 'and shall at the same time offer to such new tenant such sum as may be reasonably necessary to cover any expense or loss incidental to the removal of himself and his family as well as of his crops, stock, and chattels to such parcel of land'; and in line 19, after the word 'holding' to insert the words 'and for any expense or loss incidental to the removal of himself and his family, as well as of his crops, stock, and chattels from said holding.'"—(Lord Barrymore.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think it cannot be disputed that the noble Lord has supported this Amendment with some strong arguments. One certainly feels that if these people are moved away, it would be a hardship if they sustained, by the act of moving away, any pecuniary damage. Therefore, we are disposed to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, although I confess I rather have the fear of the Treasury before my eyes in this matter, and I am not quite sure what my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say. But I cannot oppose the insertion of this Amendment in the Bill.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought the noble Earl was perfectly right to accept

  713
  the Amendment on every ground—both technically and on merits. At the same time it seemed to him that the whole principle was given away in Clause 4 of the Bill. But he thought it quite right to put in an Amendment making absolutely clear what was covered by the Amendment.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ASHBOUENE, in proposing an Amendment providing that the Estates Commissioners might, if they thought proper, and if the new tenant so desired, award a sum as full compensation without making an offer of a parcel of land under subsection 2, said that Mr. Birrell was really answerable for having suggested the Amendment to his mind in a speech he had made on Third Reading. The speech in question was one of a most conciliatory nature—much more so than the Bill itself. Mr. Birrell appeared to speak kindly of a suggestion that it might be that the new tenant, instead of going through the form of being offered an alternative farm, would say: "Give me the money, and I will go." The present Amendment was to enable that to be done, so that instead of putting the Commissioners to the necessity of going through the form of offering an alternative farm, they could at once, if they thought right, and if the tenant desired, give him the money instead.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 22, after '1881' to insert the words 'Provided that the Estates Commissioners may, if they think proper, and the new tenant so desires, award a sum as full compensation under this subsection 3, without making an offer of a parcel of laud under subsection 2.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: This question, as some noble Lords may have seen, is not quite so simple as it seems, because when the tenant takes a farm, the money comes out of the Irish Land Purchase Fund, and is ultimately repayable to the Treasury. On the other hand, when the tenant chooses pecuniary compensation, the money is paid out of the Votes, and is never recovered.
  714
  Consequently my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is extremely unwilling—and I must say I see great force in his view of the case—to go any further than the Bill does in inviting people to take compensation rather than farms. As the Bill stands, it enables a man who does not for any reason want the farm offered, to ask for compensation instead. That, we think, is only fair, but we do not wish, as I say, to issue a general invitation to accept money compensation instead of a farm, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
  LORD ASHBOURNEregretted to say that he felt bound to do so, in deference to what seemed to him the very reasonable proposal referred to by Mr. Birrell. When the matter was mentioned in another place on Third Reading, Mr. Birrell had plainly beamed with delight, and if he had thought the matter worth thinking of, surely it was worth thinking of by their Lordships' House, unless circumlocution was to go mad. What was the proposal? The Bill said that if a new tenant was going to be put out, he would be offered another farm under subsection 2 of the clause under consideration. If the tenant did not like to take the farm, he would go to the Estates Commissioners and say, "I do not like your farm: give me compensation instead." The Estates Commissioners would then say, "Very well, if that is your habit of mind, there is your compensation." He only asked, would it not be better to drop the form of offering a man a farm which he did not want and to give him the money which he did want?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We will not trouble your Lordships to walk through the lobbies on this subject, but we cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:—
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY, in moving to omit Clause 5, said he would,

  715
  as briefly as possible, give their Lordships his reasons for doing so. Before proceeding to do that, however, he would like to point out that with the exception of Clause 1, and a certain part of Clause 3, not a single other clause of that important Bill had been discussed in the House of Commons. Therefore he thought it was necessary that these clauses, one after the other, should receive the full consideration of their Lordships' House and that the public at large should know the nature of those clauses which were closured and undiscussed in another place. The proposal in Clause 5 as it stood at the present moment was not entirely new. The proposal was contained in the Act of 1903, in Section 6 of which it was provided that any loss which should accrue with regard to the resale of estates should be made good through the public purse. That was done only, however, in the case of estates in connection with the congested districts, and the clause to which he alluded very clearly defined what those estates were. It said that—
  "The expression 'congested estate' means an estate not less than half of the area of which consists of holdings not exceeding £5 in rateable value, or of mountain or bog land, or not less than a quarter of the area of which is held in rundale or intermixed plots."
  It was therefore proposed in that section that those conditions should apply with regard to those estates which he had defined to make up the loss which it was found would take place on the resale. In the present Bill, although the spirit was the same, an entirely new principle was introduced. While the former clause was limited to estates under the Congested Districts Board, the present one proposed to extend the principle of making good any loss to any single farmer who was about to be replaced under the provisions of the Act. The result of that would be that a man who had been evicted in the past either because he had taken part in the Plan of Campaign, or because he had been unable to farm satisfactorily, because he had been thriftless, or because of the hundred and one reasons which their Lordships were aware of, was now to be, allowed to come on to a farm in any part of the district in which he was to be placed, as good as any farm occupied by his neighbours, but he was to pay, because he was an evicted
  716
  tenant, a smaller annuity on behalf of that holding than any of the surrounding farmers. A more extraordinary proposal, he thought, had never been put forward. It was putting a premium upon the thriftless tenant as against the industrious tenant, and it would naturally create discontent amongst the surrounding farmers if they found that the thriftless man was to enjoy greater advantages than were enjoyed by industrious tenant farmers. The loss to be made good by the Act of 1903 was with regard to the condition of the farm itself and the district, but the difference between that and the proposal in the present Bill was that in the latter case it was not with regard to the condition of the farm, but with regard to the condition of the man himself, that the loss was to be made good. How did His Majesty's Government propose to make good that loss? They were told that it was to be made good out of what was recognised in the Act of 1903 as a bonus. As their Lordships knew, the bonus in the Act of 1903 was voted for a specific purpose. It was to facilitate the transfer of land between the owner and the occupier, and—if he might use the expression—to bridge over the gulf which necessarily must exist in making up the loss which the owner would sustain unless he got his share of the bonus to make up the difference. Therefore the bonus in the Act of 1903 was money paid for a specific purpose, and His Majesty's Government at the present moment proposed to break into that bonus, yet they did not mention any specific sum which they proposed to take for the purpose of meeting this loss. He would like to ask the Lord President of the Council what was the sum which His Majesty's Government proposed to take from the so-called bonus, because he thought their Lordships would agree with him that upon the whole it was but right that that sum should be limited if it was to be voted from a sum of money ear-marked to be permanently used as a bridge between owners and occupiers. He was not going to suggest any sum. He thought it was a very curious principle to take a sum of money earmarked for one purpose and use it for an entirely different purpose, and yet not

  717
  give any idea in the Bill as to what that sum was to be. As he had said, he did not propose himself to mention what the sum ought to be, but he certainly thought it ought to be mentioned in the Bill. He proposed to eliminate this clause because the position in which he found himself was a somewhat difficult one. He was not in a position to move what the sum should be, because in all probability the question of privilege would be raised. Therefore the only alternative was to ask their Lordships to eliminate the clause from the Bill. He hoped, however, that the noble Earl would not think that in doing so he was disapproving of the whole of the clause. He merely moved the Amendment, as he said, because it was not in his power to deal with the question of what the sum of money should be, but he hoped that the noble Earl would accept the elimination of the clause, and that, when the measure came up at a later stage, he would be able to give them further information as to what the proposals of himself and his colleagues were, and perhaps to give them some idea as to the limits of the sum proposed to be taken. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 5."—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I quite understand the object of the noble Marquess in moving this Amendment at this time. Obviously, he would not wish to cast the clause aside altogether, because if that were done it would make it impossible for the Estates Commissioners to offer to the landowner a higher price than that at which they were able to re-sell. Nor do I think that I need repeat what I said on the Second Reading as to what I considered the general justification for drawing on the Land Purchase Fund—the bonus fund—for a moderate amount for this special purpose. We think that the sum left being considerable, and the sum asked for not being large, it is fair to ask the landlords of Ireland as a whole, who sooner or later will profit by the balance of that fund being distributed to them pro rata in the form of bonus, to contribute thus
  718
  far towards a settlement of this question. Of course, as the noble Lord well understands, and as in fact he has shown that he fully understands, it is quite impossible for us on this side of the House to name a sum of money with a view to its insertion, in the Bill, because that would obviously constitute a marked breach of the privileges of the other House. But I have no objection to telling the Committee and the noble Lord that my right hon. friend will be quite content if the limit of £100,000 is placed in the Bill; and I believe, therefore, that he will take steps to see that that is done when the Bill returns to the House of Commons.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY said that he fully recognised the spirit in which the noble Earl had met his proposal; but at the same time he was bound to say that £100,000 was a very large sum to take away from a fund earmarked for a particular purpose, and to devote to another purpose. However, after what the noble Earl had said, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6:—
  LORD CLONBROCK*LORD CLONBROCK moved an Amendment mainly to provide that the home farm should be secure from acquisition, even although not immediately adjoining the owner's demesne, and also in all cases where it was customarily occupied with his residence. He said the object of his Amendment was to define more closely the description of the land which it was proposed to exempt from the operations of the Estates Commissioners, and to introduce some further restrictions. There were a number of consequential Amendments, and he thought it better, therefore, instead of moving each one separately, to explain the various points at once. As the clause stood in the Bill, it provided that no untenanted land should be acquired compulsorily which formed part of any demesne, home farm, and so on. He proposed to insert after the word "which" the words "is or" so that it would read

  719
  "which is, or forms part of any demesne" and so on. Then there was a class of land which was valuable not only to the landlord but to the neighbourhood, namely, "townparks," or land which was in the immediate proximity of a town, and he thought that that also ought to be excluded from the operations of the Commissioners, and also building land, because it clearly was to the advantage, not only of the landlord but also of the inhabitants of the town, that that land should be reserved for building purposes. Then there was land which had a special value, either from proximity to a town or other place, or as accommodation land. Considerable distinction, he was told, was made legally between accommodation land and land valuable from proximity, and therefore he had included both terms in his Amendment. Land might not only be valuable from proximity to a town, but might also be very valuable in the case of accommodation land as being worked by the landlord in connection with his own demesne. It very often happened that the home farm was inside the demesne, and then there was no question about it. Under other circumstances it very often happened that from the demesne not being well adapted for tillage the home farm was situated outside it, and even sometimes not immediately adjoining it, but at a certain distance. He knew of a case where that occurred, and it showed how necessary it was to guard against the action of the Commissioners that in that particular case the Estates Commissioners refused to consider the whole of the remainder of the property unless the landlord agreed to throw in this farm with it, which he had to do at very considerable inconvenience, his demesne not being fit for tillage. He thought that was a case well deserving of exemption. In other cases there might be a considerable extent of land, which a landlord who farmed largely was in the habit of working in connection with his demesne. Cases of that kind had already been mentioned. Such a landlord would be a great employer of labour, and it would be a great loss to the neighbourhood that such land should be taken from him and divided, for it was quite clear that then the labourers would be turned out of employment, to their very
  720
  considerable loss. It might be said that those labourers could be provided for on some of this land, but the land would not hold more than a certain number of people, and if the labourers were to be provided for there would be no room for the evicted tenants, and vice versa. He thought everyone would agree that it would be a misfortune that such large farming operations should cease in any part of Ireland, not only in the part with which he was best acquainted—for the landlords were almost the sole employers of labour. Farms, as a rule, were small, the farmers did not till, and they employed very little labour except during the haymaking season, or at odd times in the summer. In such cases it would be a great disadvantage that large farming operations should cease, and it would be, on the other hand, a great advantage for the country that they should have a farm properly worked as an example in their midst. Apparently hopes were entertained that what Mr. John Stuart Mill used to call "the magic of property" would induce the new tenant purchasers to till their land. He should rejoice at such a result. But they were not people easily receptive of new ideas, and tillage had fallen off in a most remarkable degree for a considerable number of years. He remembered a conversation with a man well known to most of their Lordships—at least by name—the late O'Conor Don. He had driven with O'Conor Don and with Mr. Wyndham, when the latter was Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant, through parts of the county of Roscommon—by no mean's the congested parts, but parts where farms were very much of the same size as those proposed to be established now for evicted tenants or for ordinary tenant purchasers, averaging, say, thirty acres. On that occasion O'Conor Don had remarked, "I remember the whole of this under tillage; look at it now. There is now a little patch round every man's house. Therefore give the people more land if you like, but do not think they will till it if you do, or at least do not be confident of it." And he was sorry to say that in his experience that prophecy had been very often fulfilled. In his own county of Galway farms had been divided among

  721
  tenant purchasers; and the first thing those men had done had been to meadow the land, cut the hay and sell it, with the result that two years ago very fair hay was to be bought for 15s. a ton, and the supply of it considerably exceeded the demand. Again, he had heard of milch cows being brought in for sale by these men, and people being entreated to buy them, in such a state of starvation that there ought to have been a prosecution for cruelty to animals, the reason being that they had sold the hay in the summer and had nothing to give their animals in the winter. With such instances as that before them, it was really important that there should be some people in the country who worked the land in the way it ought to be worked; but that was really only done by landlords farming a farm largely, as a great many would do if they were allowed. But if the land was to be taken away from them in the way suggested by the Bill, naturally the whole of the farming operations would he dislocated, and the labourers, as he had said, would suffer. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would allow the insertion of the words which he proposed.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 5, line 25, after the word 'which,' to insert the words 'is or' and after the word 'farm' to insert the word 'townpark' and leave out the word 'or.'"
  "In line 26, after the word 'pleasure' to insert the words 'or building' and after the word 'ground' to insert the words 'or which possesses an exceptional or accommodation value to the owner in connection with his farming or owing to its proximity to a town or otherwise.'"
  "In page 5, line 32, to leave out the word 'immediately' and leave out the word 'and' and insert the word 'or.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We are able to accept the first Amendment which the noble Lord mentioned in his very interesting speech, and also to meet him to some extent upon others. The first Amendment seems quite a reasonable one.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I had better put the Amendments to the House one by one. The question is after the word "which" to insert the words "is or."
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The question is, after "farm" to insert "townpark."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The question is, that the word "or" stand part of the clause."
  Motion negatived.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he understood that "townpark" was now included.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes. Then as regards building land we assent to the principle, but we do not think that the phrase "building ground" is one which has any distinct meaning.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: "Building land."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It is very difficult indeed to define building land. Would the noble Lord accept the words "or ground proposed to be let or sold for building sites"?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: If "intended" was put in instead of "proposed" it might do.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: If noble Lords will not accept that, would they accept "ground suitable for building sites"?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: That would do.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment as to accommodation land. It seems to me to be too wide. The noble Lord spoke of land forming part of the home farm, even though it was not part of the demesne, but that surely would be covered by the words "home farm," because there is nothing in Clause 6 as it stands which makes it necessary for the home farm to be inside the demesne, and therefore if the land was used as demesne, though outside, I imagine it would be included.
  LORD CLONBROCK: I quoted an instance where the Estates Commissioners

  723
  had refused to recognise a piece of land as a home farm because it was not immediately adjoining the demesne, and had refused to consider the whole property an estate unless the landlord gave up that particular farm to be divided, though it was the only farm he had for tillage. It was not touching the demesne, but within a quater or half a mile of it.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It is very difficult, as the noble Lord will understand, to say whether a hardship existed in a particular clause or not, and it clearly would not be possible for the Estates Commissioners to include every farm which the landlord might happen to have in hand at any distance from his home or demesne. I will certainly consider if anything can be done to meet a case of that kind, but we do not like the words as they stand.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Does the noble Earl object to the omission of the word "immediate"?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We do.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: And also to the addition of the words "accommodation land"?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes; we do not agree to leave out "immediately" or to leave out "and" and insert "or."
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Might I suggest that it would be better if the Amendments were agreed to and settled, and then the other matters considered afterwards?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps the noble Earl at the Table will take the building Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: What are the exact words?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The words are after "pleasure" to insert "or ground suitable for building sites."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Perhaps the other words could be considered before Report.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he did not know why the noble Earl was making a fuss, about the word "immediately," or what was the supreme difference which made him happy with one and unhappy with the other. Whether the land adjoined or did not adjoin, there was surely no magic about the word "immediately."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: What is meant by "adjoining" I frankly confess I do not know, neither do I know what is meant by "immediately adjoining"—neither do I know whether there has been any legal decision on the subject. Supposing an estate to be in a ring fence of 100,000 acres, the whole acreage would be in one sense "adjoining," but not within the meaning of this Bill. These words are taken, I think, from one of the Labourers Acts. I think they are taken from the Labourers Act of 1883, and therefore I suppose that they have come before various Courts of law.
  LORD ASHBOURNEimagined that the person who had originally used the expression was not a Mede or a Persian.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I hope the noble Lord will not insist upon the insertion of the word "immediately."
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Do I understand that the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment?
  LORD CLONBROCK: No. I attach great importance both to the omission of the word "immediately" and to the insertion of the word "or."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid we cannot agree to the word "or" instead of "and," because that, I think does alter the case. The words are "any" home farm or land immediately adjoining and customarily occupied with his residence." That is the point with regard to which I said I would see if there were any means of meeting the noble Lord. But the word "or" is far too wide, because it would include land on any part of the estate.
  LORD CLONBROCKsaid he really must hold to the word "or."
  LORD BARRYMOREsaid it would create a very great hardship unless the power was unlimited. He would suggest that the three words should be left out—"immediately adjoining and"—because there were plenty of farms which were worked in with a demesne which were neither "immediate," nor "adjoining," but some slight distance off, but which nevertheless were "customarily" worked with the home farm, and if they left in the words "customarily occupied with his residence" he thought they might safely and justly leave out "immediately adjoining and."
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope the noble Earl will consider whether some means cannot be found of meeting the objections of my noble friends. I put it to the noble Earl that it is very undesirable to do anything which will have the effect of discouragin; what I would call bona fide farming by landowners. If you can find a large landowner—such as the late Lord Bessborough, whom I daresay my noble friend remembers—who takes an interest in farming, and farms on a large scale, the effect of that is most exemplary and admirable for the whole neighbourhood; and therefore men of that kind should receive whatever encouragement we can give them. They are large employers of labour, and for that reason alone deserve consideration. But I am sure noble Lords do not want to push that too far. The case which I understand they have in their minds is a case where a landowner has been engaged in what I call bona fide farming operations, but where his farm happens to be not in immediate contact with his residence or with his park. I gather from what Lord Clonbrock told us a moment ago that a case of that kind has actually arisen, a case in which there was not this point of contact between the farm and the demesne, with the result that the unfortunate owner was heavily mulcted in this sense, that he was not allowed to pursue the transaction for the sale of the whole of the property any further until he surrendered the land which he had himself been farming. I do not know whether the actual words which my noble friends have put down are exactly the most appropriate; but I
  726
  cannot help thinking that some means ought to be found of meeting the case they have brought before the House.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I certainly will think that point over, and see if any form of words can be found which would meet a hard case of the kind mentioned by the noble Marquess, without opening the door too wide and letting in very large tracts of land which might be kept in one hand, which I think ought not to be kept out of the purview of the Bill. Before the next stage of the Bill I will consult my right hon. friend, and see if there is any via media in the matter.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Before we part with the clause, I understand the noble Lord to agree not to move the insertion of the words "or building"; but that, instead thereof, he accepts the proposal of the noble Lord the Lord President after the word "ground" to insert the words "or ground suitable for building sites."
  LORD CLONBROCK: Yes.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: And also the noble Lord does not press at the present stage to leave out the word "immediately"?
  LORD CLONBROCK: No.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: And also the substitution of "or" for "and."
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.
  Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE moved the addition of the words: "Save by agreement with the owner, such lands only shall be selected as immediately adjoin or are accessible from the existing public road;" "The owner may offer an alternative site, which the Estates Commissioners shall fully and fairly consider." He thought the noble Earl would undoubtedly at once recognise the phraseology of his two Amendments. They were taken from the Labourers Act, as were a great many of the words which were found in the clause under discussion. The Labourers Act provided that no land was to be taken

  727
  compulsorily for a labourer's cottage unless it was accessible from a public road. That was one of the Amendments he had put down, and he supposed there was no objection to it. It was obviously not desirable that land should be compulsorily taken in the middle of a man's estate, but that it should abut on a public road; otherwise, there might be great difficulty, and no convenience would be given. The principle had been in operation for a number of years in Ireland, and his noble friend, Lord Denman would be acquainted with the Acts in which it was embodied. That was his first Amendment. If he was in order in mentioning the second, he might say that it was also taken from the Labourers Act, and he thought it was a matter that had worked extremely well. He had presided at so many appeals for so many years that he had considerable personal knowledge of these matters. The power for an owner to give an alternative site if he did not approve of the particular one selected had worked most beneficently and had led to a great many satisfactory adjustments. The owner said: "Do not take that; it is my best field; I use it for access for my cattle for water, but I will give you just as good a site abutting on a road near to water." That had led to a settlement over and over again, and all he sought in his Amendment was that the owner should have power to offer a second site in the event of his not approving of the one chosen by the Commissioners. He hoped the noble Lord would consider his Amendments.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 5, line 36, after the word 'possible' to insert the words 'save by agreement with the owner, such lands only shall be selected as immediately join or are accessible from an existing public road.'"
  "In page 5, line 36, after the word 'possible,' to insert the words 'the owner may offer an alternative site, which the Estates Commissioners shall fully and fairly consider.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  LORD DENMANdid not think that this particular case was quite on all fours with the case of the Labourers Act, as the noble and learned Lord would suggest. Clause 6 of the Bill
  728
  was from the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883. The noble and learned Lord's Amendment, he understood, was taken from Section 3 of the Labourers Act, 1886.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that that made no difference.
  LORD DENMANsaid that the section of the Act of 1886 was found, even in the case of a labourer's cottage, to cause such inconvenience that it had been later on amended. He did not think he could give the details. Therefore the Government were of opinion that the proposed Amendment would hamper them in the operations of the Bill.
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked in what way.
  LORD DENMANsaid he would try to explain. In many cases they might wish to acquire land that was not on a road—that was to say, it was upon a mountain side or did not adjoin a public road at all. He believed the Estates Commissioners had power to make roads.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that that was not in the Bill.
  LORD DENMANthought that under the Acts with which the Bill was read they had power to make roads.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he would not contradict the noble Lord, for he did not know.
  LORD DENMANsaid that that was his information, but if the noble and learned Lord said it was not the case, no doubt he had ground for saying so. He was informed that the principle which applied in the case of the acquisition of land by local authorities for labourers cottages did not apply in the present case, because local authorities had no power similar to that possessed by the Estates Commissioners to make roads.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that no doubt it was his own fault, but he did not understand the objections made to his proposals, which were submitted in perfect good faith, and in the interests

  729
  of peace and harmony. If the noble Lord would think for a minute, he would see that his arguments were unanswerable. What right would anybody have to select land in the middle of a man's estate or farm that was not approachable by a road? The matter was surely one of common sense. It might lead to the most frightful inconvenience and the grossest injustice if a man was sent to pick out part of a man's property in the middle of his farm and to say, "We will take that although there is no road to it." It was to obviate that inconvenience that, no matter what the Labourers Act might say, he was proposing that the land should be selected so as immediately to adjoin, or to be accessible from, an existing public road. Why should it not? Surely it was almost nonsense to suggest that the Estates Commissioners were to be at liberty to take land not approachable from anywhere except by a balloon. He did not understand the objection. It did not convey any meaning to his mind, and he thought he understood the way in which these matters worked. He did not know whether the noble Lord also objected to his second Amendment of offering an alternative site. It was obviously in the interests of peace, harmony, and good will. Why should not a man be at liberty to say "Do not take that farm; it will destroy all my family arrangements; I will give you another just as good, accessible from a road, and near water and all the other things which are so advantageous"? Someone or other had told the noble Lord that these Amendments were unacceptable. He wished the noble Lord would tell that somebody that he (Lord Ashbourne) did not understand the objections.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that no doubt the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would remember that exactly the same point arose in the Labourers Act of last year, and the noble Lord accepted an Amendment that the particular labourer's cottage should be accessible to wheeled vehicles. That was done because it would create a tremendous difficulty if there were only a path there, and if that path in this case
  730
  was interfered with he did not see how the matter could be arranged at all. But if a provision were put in in the same way as in the former Act—that it should be a road accessible to wheeled vehicles—the difficulty might be got over, because they did not, after all, want to take a patch of land and then not be able to get at it in any way. As had been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, if a man wanted to drive his cattle to water or to market objections might be made, and surely it was only reasonable that there should be some accessibility to the bit of land proposed to be taken.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I should have thought that this Amendment was a thoroughly innocuous one even if it was not urgently called for, and that His Majesty's Government would have been glad to accept it in order that the arrangements under the Bill should work without friction and harmoniously. Nothing could be more likely to create friction than to place any of the new tenants in a position in which they could not have access to their farms except by trespassing upon somebody else's property. I should have thought that from that point of view alone the Amendment might have been accepted.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Of course, the parallel with the Labourers Acts is not really a very complete one, because under those Acts only very small sites are taken, whereas by this Bill obviously a considerable tract of country might be acquired. I quite well remember what the noble Lord alluded to as having taken place last year. I think, if I remember rightly, it was his own Amendment, and it was found to be inconvenient that only sites should be taken which were approachable from a public road, and, therefore, an Amendment was agreed to stating that access should be made possible to some form of vehicles, which, of course, included all sorts of cartroads and accommodation roads, and which therefore, enlarged the scope of the Bill. But I do not know that that would be very much help in this instance. I imagine that what the Estates Commissioners had in their minds in saying that this provision

  731
  might in some cases be a convenience to them would be the kind of case which would arise, I should have thought, certainly in nineteen cases out of twenty, in which, supposing the operation to be carried out, it would be done by agreement—namely, when they desired to acquire a large tract of land say on the side of a mountain or something of that kind.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I admit the large tract of land.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: And to make a road themselves, which is a power they have under the Act of 1903.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I am satisfied if the noble Lord will consider it before the Report stage.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I will do that. As regards the noble Lord's other Amendment I think that if inserted at all it ought to form a new clause, but I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord really thinks it necessary. We cannot, of course, object to the substance of it in any way, but I should have thought that in all cases negotiations would take place between the owner and the Commissioners before compulsory powers were put into force. Nobody supposes the Estates Commissioners are going to say, "Here is a piece of land and we are going to take it." The whole thing would be the result of negotiations, and it would only be after the fullest negotiations with the landlords that compulsion would be put in force. But we cannot object to the noble Lord's Amendment if he would not mind putting it in separately as a new clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble and learned friend's suggestion seems valuable, for this reason amongst others. A great deal of dissatisfaction has been caused recently owing to the fact that the inspectors of the Estates Commissioners have been in the habit of making—I will not say surreptitious visits—but visits with very little publicity about them, to estates where there were thought to be opportunities for reinstating evicted tenants. We want to guard against that, and to have all these proceedings as far as
  732
  possible conducted in the light of day, and in such a manner that at an early stage of the proceedings the landowner, if he has an offer to make, may have an opportunity of making it. Now, as I understand, the addition of these words would give every landowner an opportunity at the very outset, when he found that the inspector proposed to expropriate him from a particular portion of his estate, of saying, "Well, if you want land in this neighbourhood I can give you something which will suit you quite as well, and me a great deal better." The earlier the stage at which the landowner is empowered to make a proposal of that kind the better I think for everyone's convenience.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I understand the noble Earl accepts the first Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes. I should like it put in as a new clause.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I admit that it errs on the ground of common sense as I have put it in, but the noble Earl can have it translated into a somewhat more lengthy form on the Report stage.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The question is "That in page 5, line 36, after the word 'possible,' to insert the words, 'Save by agreement with the owner such lands only shall be selected as immediately adjoin or are accessible from an existing public road.'"
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Then with regard to the second Amendment?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: That stands over.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ASHBOURNEwas afraid that was wrong. He had said that he would not put the first—that was, about the access to a public road. But the second he understood the noble Lord to accept
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, we accept that.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  After Clause 6:—
  LORD INCHIQUIN LORD INCHIQUIN moved to insert a new clause providing that where any land was compulsorily purchased or taken under the Act all sporting rights hitherto enjoyed by the vendor, if he so desired, should remain vested in him notwithstanding such purchase. He said it was quite possible that the provision of the clause might be covered elsewhere in the Bill, but he had been unable to discover that that was the case, and therefore he had put the Amendment upon the Paper. Clause 16 of the Bill said—
  "This Act may be cited as the 'Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907,' and shall be construed as one with Part I. of the Irish Land Act (1903)."
  It was quite possible that the provisions of that Act might deal with the sporting rights under the present Bill, and, if so, it would save time if one of the noble Lords opposite would say so.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following new clause:—'Where any land is compulsorily purchased or taken under this Act all sporting rights hitherto enjoyed by the vendor shall, if he so desires, remain vested in him notwithstanding such purchase.'"—(Lord Inchiquin.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: What would happen would be, that the sporting rights would be in all cases vested in the Land Commission, as in the Act of 1903.
  LORD INCHIQUINinquired whether there was power in that Act to reserve those rights.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Quite so.
  LORD INCHIQUINdesired to know whether that was so in this Bill.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: No, they are vested in the Land Commission.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid that in that case he would have to press his Amendment, because he thought it was right that
  734
  the landlord should retain his interest; it would chiefly apply to untenanted land adjoining the estate, where there was game, and it might also apply to fishing rights. It might happen, of course, in a great many small cases that the landlord had the sporting rights on the banks of a river and that they were suddenly interrupted by a farm which did not belong to him; and he thought that would be most unfair. In the Act of 1903 the landlord had power to reserve his sporting rights, or to sell them to the Estates Commissioners, or to pass them on to the tenant, or to sell them to private individuals. He had practically an absolute right to do what he liked with his own; and naturally that was a fair thing to do here—it might be a very valuable right.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Here again, I venture to intercede with the noble Earl in the interests of peace and good understanding when this Bill becomes law. What could be more likely to lead to trouble than that a single evicted tenant should be given a farm with full sporting rights upon a patch of untenanted land belonging to the landlord? The whole of the sporting rights all round it belong to the landlord, and you create arbitrarily in the middle of his property a little island where he has no right to exercise rights, which he has in fact always exercised without question. If, under the Act of 1903, we provided for an arrangement under which all these sporting rights might remain in the landlord's hands, surely, by parity of reasoning in this case it is desirable that the landlord should have an opportunity of keeping in his own hands a privilege to which he attaches a very great value.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: As I read the Act of 1903, it can only be done by agreement between landlord and purchaser. The landlord cannot absolutely say that he will retain the rights.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But can he refuse to sell?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: He can refuse to sell—no doubt he has that lever—but if he sells he cannot, as a part of the transaction, retain the sporting rights except by agreement, and in the absence of agreement they are vested in the Land

  735
  Commissioners. That provision clearly would not be of much use to noble Lords in this case. I should like to put this point to the noble Marquess. After all, all sporting rights are practically everywhere exercised by goodwill and agreement, and if the landlord in all cases captures the sporting rights, so to speak, as a preliminary to the replacing of some tenant on the land, I should have thought it would have been very much more difficult for him to agree with the evicted tenant who had come there, and who, after all, in many cases could make the really valuable exercise of those rights almost impossible, because it is common experience that nobody can exercise sporting rights anywhere except with the goodwill of the farming tenants. I should have thought he would have had a far better chance of doing what he would wish to do through the medium of the Estates Commissioners, who, in the kind of case mentioned by my noble friend (Lord Inchiquin)—of valuable fishing rights—would clearly reserve those rights to the landlord. What would take place in such a case as that is obvious. The rights are placed in the hands of the Comissioners, who can deal with them according to the equities of the particular case. But I do not believe that it would tend to the peace and quietness which we should all like to see if it became an absolute right of the landlord to insist upon retaining them against the wish of everybody else.
  LORD INCHIQUINdid not think the noble Lord was quite right in what he had said about the section in the Act of 1903. He had drafted that clause himself, and his impression was that the landlord had the power first of all to retain in his own hands all sporting rights; he had the power to sell them to any private individual, to sell them to the Estates Commissioners, or to sell them to the tenant. He was not quite certain, but that was his recollection. What the noble Lord proposed to do now was to transfer those sporting rights from the landlord to the Land Commission and say, "Now you can go and bargain." Why hand them over to the Land Commission and then start bargaining? It seemed grossly unjust.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: May I read the words of Section 13 of the Act of 1903—
  "Where, at the time of sale of any land to the Land Commission or to tenants or others, the vendor has, subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 1880, sporting rights, exclusive of the tenant, those rights may, by agreement between the vendor and purchaser be either conveyed to the purchaser or be expressly reserved to the vendor."
  That is a matter of agreement. Of course the noble Marquess can point out that the landowner has that lever, but he cannot begin by saying the sporting rights are to be in any event regarded as being the absolute property of the landowner;
  "and in the absence of such agreement those rights shall be vested in the Land Commission, and the Land Commission may deal with the same, subject to regulations to be made by the Lord-Leiutenant."
  That is the analogy that we go on here.
  The Earl of DONOUGHMOREappealed to His Majesty's Government not to be quite so strict upon this point, for another reason than that which had already been mentioned. He was sure that if this Amendment was accepted, the Bill would work much more smoothly, because they would find that landlord after landlord would be ready, without the compulsory powers being put in force, to sell the land along a river if they were absolutely certain of having the fishing rights along that river, but those same landlords would fight tooth and nail rather than give up a hundred yards of fishing if the position was left as it was. The noble Earl had read the section of the Act, and he (the Earl of Donoughmore) understood the position to be that at present the landlord had to bargain with the purchaser, and if he failed to agree with the purchaser, the rights were vested in the Land Commission. Evidently what the Government intended was that the Land Commission should be able to say: "I am the purchaser, and I get these things for nothing, therefore I will not agree with you about anything." He thought that was a very mean position for the Land Commission to take up.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I really must interrupt the noble Earl, because I am perfectly certain that that is not the opinion of the Government or of the Estates Commissioners. The opinion of the Estates Commissioners, I think, was that it would not be nearly so easy for the landlord to bargain directly with a newcomer, or a returned evicted tenant, and that, therefore, the sporting rights should be, so to speak, deposited with them with a view to an arrangement being come to through them. That is what I understand to be the intention.
  THE EARL OF ARRANsaid that there were certain very valuable assets in the shooting rights, and if the Estates Commissioners did not propose to allow anything to the landlord for them, the landlord would not only lose his land, for which he was paid, but the very valuable sporting rights for which he had got nothing.
  On Question, "That the new clause stand part of the Bill," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 26.

  CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Faber, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Wellington, D.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Addington, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Camden, M.

  Amherst of Hankney, L.

  Kelvin, L.

  Hertford, M

  Ampthill, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Kensington, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Atkinson, L.

  Langford, L.

  Bandon E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Cawdor E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Belper, L.

  Massy, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Middleton, L.

  Derby, E.

  Burton, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Devon, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  North, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Carew, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Penrhyn, L.

  Lindsey, E.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Londesborough, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Mayo, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Rathdonnell, L.

  Morton, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Saint Germans, E.

  Collins, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  De Freyne, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Wicklow, E.

  Deramore, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Digby, L.

  Templermore, L.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Falkland, V.

  Dunalley, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Dunleath, L.

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

  Hill, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Hood, V.

  Estcourt, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Blyth, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

  Haversham, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Headley, L.

  Denman, L.

  Hemphill, L.

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

  Lyveden, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  O' Hagan, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Craven, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Rendel, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Swaythling, L.

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

  Weardale, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8:—
  LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE moved to amend the clause so that no holding purchased by an evicted tenant should be made available in any bankruptcy or by any "other" proceeding of law to pay any debt contracted by the evicted tenant prior to the date of the order vesting such holding in him. He said that this Amendment was little more than a drafting Amendment to make clear what he believed to be the intention of the clause. He thought the Government must not be surprised if the clause did not give entire satisfaction to a certain class of persons in Ireland, namely, the small tradesmen, who would find by this and the next clause that the debts owing to them by the evicted tenants and which had been owing probably for years, were by these clauses as completely voided as if the debtor had received his discharge in bankruptcy, or as if the Statute of Limitations applied. He left the responsibility of that with the Government. If the Amendment were agreed to the clause would read, "any other process or proceeding of law." As it stood, the Clause would imply that bankruptcy was not a proceeding of law, but he believed that most people were under a quite contrary impression.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 15, after the second 'any to insert the word' other.'"—(Lord Dunboyne.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Undoubtedly this is an important Amendment, and the Government will be happy to accept it, both here and in the next clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment in Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11:—
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREin moving a proviso that "surplus lands" should not be sold to any person other than the vendor without such land having been first offered to such vendor, said that all that his Amendment desired to secure was that the person from whom the land was acquired should have power to take the land back at the pro rata price, the price being fixed according to the amount of land he took back as compared with what had gone from him. He thought it was only a fair provision that land taken for the purpose of this Act should be offered to the person from whom it was acquired before the Government used it for any other purposes not contemplated by the Act.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 26, after '1903' to insert the words 'or may be resold to the vendor provided that no such land shall be sold to any person other than the vendor unless it shall have been offered to the vendor at the price for which it is so sold, and unless he shall have failed to accept the said offer within a period of one month from the date thereof.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not think the wording of the noble Earl's Amendment is very clear, if he will excuse me for saying so. It says—
  "To any person other than the vendor, unless it shall have been offered to the vendor at the price for which it is so sold."
  But it has not been sold. The whole point is that it has not been sold to anybody. It is surplus land.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid it had been sold by the vendor to the Land Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl means the price at which the Land Commissioners have purchased it?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: From him—yes.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: If the noble Earl would take it in another way, we might meet him the word "vendor" is really not right here. Would the noble Earl take it in this way—"or may be sold

  741
  to the person from whom it was acquired"?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not know whether it is necessary to go into the question of price. Of course the difficulty is to say exactly what price was given for that particular surplus land. Therefore I am afraid it is useless to put into the clause, "the price for which it is so sold." What the noble Earl really desires, I think, is some machinery for discovering the actual value pro rata of that particular piece.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps the noble Earl will take into consideration how that could be done. We think it sufficient to say that the land may be re sold to the person from whom it was acquired, and it stands to reason it would be at the price at which it was acquired.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREquestioned whether it did stand to reason, and hoped that an attempt would not be made to make another profit out of the unfortunate owner. After all, it was only a question of words between himself and the Lord President of the Council, and therefore he would not press his Amendment now. He was sure the noble Earl would allow him to consult with him before the Report stage, and that they would be able to find suitable words.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13:—
  LORD ATKINSON, in moving to omit Clause 13, said this clause as it stood, was about the most extraordinary of this extraordinary Bill. The Estates Commissioners were given the tenure of County Court Judges; and that tenure was, that they held on good behaviour,
  742
  and they could not be removed except upon an Address to the Crown presented by both Houses of Parliament. The words "good behaviour" might to a certain extent mislead the lay mind; but they had, on different occasions, for the last sixty years received a construction which amounted to this—that the tenure could only be terminated upon intentional misconduct. The matter had been considered originally, on the first occasion which it was necessary to refer to, so far back as 1843. At that time, the conduct of Baron Smith, an Irish Judge, was brought before the House of Commons with a view to having an Address presented to remove him. It was then laid down by Sir Robert Peel that nothing was misbehaviour so as to subject him to removal except corruption, intentional moral delinquency, conscious partisanship, or perverting justice. Sir James Graham, on the same occasion, also said that the bad behaviour which justified the removal of a Judge was a badness of heart and a corrupt intention which had contributed to the defeat of justice; and Lord Palmerston said it was a gross perversion of justice by corruption, intention or incapacity—physical incapacity. The same meaning had been approved and adopted some three years ago in the case of an Irish County Court Judge, Mr. O'Connor Morris, and again last year when the conduct of a well-known Judge was before the House of Commons. Therefore, as it applied to County Court Judges, it would receive the same interpretation; and it might I be assumed that at present the Estates Commissioners were in the position that, except for some corrupt and wilful malfeasance in their office, they could not be removed. This was one of the particular instances in which the Government had gone out of its way, apparently for no obvious reason, to destroy one of the main and best features of the Act of 1903. In saying that it was one of the best features, he relied upon the testimony of everybody concerned; that feature was, that the Commissioners should be administrative officers under the control of the Lord-Lieutenant, bound to carry out their duties in obedience to regulations made by him, and that their conduct should be subject to discussion in the House

  743
  of Commons. There was not a single person who spoke upon the Bill of 1903 who did not lay stress on that circumstance. He would presently take the liberty of quoting to the House the language of Mr. Redmond on behalf of the Nationalists, of Mr. Wyndham, on behalf of the Government, and of Mr. Blake and Mr. Healy, all approving of the position in which the Estates Commissioners were then placed. The present Prime Minister spoke in the debate, but did not say one word in disparagement of or express the slightest dissent from what had been said, Mr. Redmond, speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill on 25th March, 1903, said—
  "This can hardly be considered a thoroughly satisfactory tribunal: one unsuitable man, one suitable man, and one unknown man. However, I heartily congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact of its being a non-judicial tribunal. Nothing could do more harm to this measure than the impression that it would be run by any of the 'old gang,' whose conduct we are not allowed to discuss on the floor of the House of Commons. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has made a departure in that respect, and that the officials will be servants of the Government whose conduct can be discussed on the floor of the House of Commons."
  On 1st July, 1903, in Committee, when a Motion had been made to put the other Commissioners on a footing of exact equality with Mr. Wrench, Mr. Wyndham, then Chief Secretary, and speaking on behalf of the Government, expressed himself thus—
  "During the long conferences which preceded the introduction of the Bill and on almost every clause, he had laid the greatest stress on the administrative character of the new Commission. That the new Commission should be of an administrative character was not merely his personal opinion, it was an integral part of the policy of the Government. He could not have persuaded his right hon. friend to sanction the use of large public funds for purely executive work, except upon the basis that those who administered them were in a very real sense executive officers, subject, on matters of policy, and in the economic and proper use of its funds, not only to the control of the Government, but to the criticism of the House. That placed an initial bar in the way of giving to the Estates Commissioners a tenure which would be to all intents and purposes a judicial tenure. If they had such a tenure the fact of their salaries appearing on the Votes would not place them in the position of executive officers."
  744
  Mr. Blake, Mr. Healy, and Mr. Dillon all expressed themselves thoroughly satisfied with that; and the result was that Section 23 of the Act of 1093 provided that the Estates Commissioners should do as all civil servants and military servants of the Crown prima facie did, namely, hold their offices at the pleasure of the Crown. But they had this additional protection—that that pleasure was to be expressed by order of the Lord Lieutenant, which was to lie upon the Table of the House forty days, and if any person moved an Address in the interim it could be acted upon. Now that tenure it appeared, was not good enough. He-did not know why they should wish it to be strengthened, unless indeed it was in reference to the discontent of the 5,000 claimants who might be rejected, and who probably would show anything in the world but confidence in the decision of the Commisioners. He thought that in some of his observations the noble Earl had said that these Commissioners had a judicial rather than an administrative position. In one sense, that was true, but in nine-tenths of its application it was absolutely incorrect, The duties of a Judge they had not; they did judicial acts, no doubt; but, what was a judicial act? A judicial act might be roughly defined as being not necessarily an act done by Judges, but an act done by competent authorities, on consideration of the facts and circumstances, imposing liability upon, or affecting the rights of, other people. There was not a single magistrate who did not do judicial work; there was not a single arbitrator appointed under the Lands Clauses Act, the Housing of the Working Classes Act, or the Allotments Act who, in deciding upon questions of compensation, did not do judicial work, which was a "judicial act." There was not a single auditor appointed and engaged in auditing the accounts of Poor Law guardians and other such bodies who, in certifying as to charges to be made against certain bodies, did not do a judicial act. But who ever suggested that these auditors, these arbitrators, and these magistrates should hold their offices during good behaviour and be irremovable except upon an Address by both Houses of Parliament? The great virtue, no doubt, of the Judges

  745
  of the superior Courts was that they were removed from the influence of hope and fear by having a permanent tenure. But the great merit of an executive officer was that, although he was an officer who no doubt would tender advice to a superior, nevertheless, as regarded that superior, he would have no will or opinion of his own, but would suppress himself and carry out loyally and faithfully the wishes and policy of his Ministerial superior. From what the noble Lord had said, one would fancy that these Estates Commissioners were engaged the greater part of their time in doing judicial work; but nineteen-twentieths of their duties were administrative. What really were their duties? They bought estates; they sold estates; they improved estates; they built houses and made roads; they made grants to individuals; they divided farms, and regulated peat-bogs; and they settled boundaries. Let the HOUSE imagine two Estates Commissioners settling a peat bog and saying, "We don't care what anybody thinks; we don't care what the Lord-Lieutenant may think; we think so-and-so, and, though it may make a commotion in the district, we will adhere to our decision." If they were honest in that decision, and if, carried away by egotism or vanity, or influences of that sort, they honestly decided something, even though that decision was against common sense, prudence, reason, and justice, they could not be removed under the doctrine laid down with regard to the irremovability of Judges. They could buy estates at any price they pleased, and they could make grants and loans to evicted tenants; and, at a time when there might be financial pressure, they could spend millions and millions of money. And, if called to account, they could turn round and say, "We are irremovable, we cannot be removed except we are guilty of misbehaviour, and misbehaviour is intentional wrongdoing. We are honest in our opinions although everybody thinks them nonsensical; and we cannot be disturbed." Up to now, he had assumed that Section 23 of the Act of 1903 did not apply. It must either apply or not apply. If it did not apply, it placed the Commissioners in an absurd position. But the absurdity did not end there: they were
  746
  members of the Land Commission; and, as members of the Land Commission, which was a great spending body, they were bound to account to the Treasury. But, while they were bound to account to the Treasury, they might disregard the wishes of the Treasury. In addition to that, if Section 23 of the Act of 1903 did not apply it placed them in an absurd position for any executive officer. If it did apply, their position was, if possible, more ridiculous. For, while they were to be under the control of the Lord-Lieutenant, he could not disturb them without an Address to the Crown. They were to act according to his regulations, but they might disregard his regulations; and if they disregarded his regulations honestly believing that those regulations were illegal, they might be in a position of absolute defiance of the authority whom they were bound to obey. The truth of the matter was that, while executive officers were removable and justly removable on the ground of want of discretion, want of prudence, want of common sense, and want of ability to carry out the organisation or efficiently to discharge the duties of their office so as not to cause delay and irritation—while all those were reasons for their removal, they were no reasons at all for removing a person with the tenure of a Judge. Notwithstanding their enormous administrative duties, the millions of public money they had to administer, and the thousands of public money they might lose in administration, because they were quite entitled to distribute a million in free grants to tenants and in improving the tenants' lands they were to be placed absolutely beyond the control of the Ministry—or of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who represented the Ministry—under whom the money was spent. Their position was extremely secure. They held, no doubt, at pleasure, but the pleasure could only be expressed through the medium of an Order of the Lord-Lieutenant which was to lie on the Table of the House of Commons for forty days; and, if any attempt were made by the Government to bring undue pressure to bear upon them, they were perfectly safe, and their tenure was quite secure enough to protect them from any undue interference, while at the same time the Government of

  747
  the day were responsible for their acts and must find the money to carry out the engagements into which they entered on behalf of the State. He therefore submitted that they were amply protected; and he begged to move that the clause be omitted, and that the Estates Commissioners be left as they were with a tenure which had been well considered, which everybody approved, and against which, as far as he knew, there never had been any objection.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 13."—(Lord Atkinson.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: That is a question which in one sense is by no means an easy one, although it is a tolerably simple one. I think every Member of the House will agree that if the Estates Commissioners are really executive officers there is much to be said for the contention of the noble and learned Lord. On the other hand, if they are to be regarded in any substantial degree as judicial officers, it seems equally to stand to reason that the change proposed by the Bill can also be defended by argument. As the noble and learned Lord has told us, Section 23 of the Act of 1903 states what the position of the Estates Commissioners is. They hold office during pleasure, and they are only liable to be removed by an Order in Council, which has to be laid on the table of either House for forty days, and does not come into effect if an Address is carried against it. It stands to reason that under some circumstances that is no protection at all against administrative pressure. If the Estates Commissioners for any reason displeased the Government of the day at a time when both Houses represent the same political views, the Estate Commissioners are done for—they have no safeguard in either House of Parliament. Under the present circumstances I quite admit it might be different. If we desired to remove the Estates Commissioners I have no doubt your Lordships would desire to retain them. On the other hand, the position of a County Court Judge is, as your Lordships know, held during good behaviour. He is only
  748
  liable to be removed for distinct misconduct. The question, therefore, really arises, to what extent are judicial duties imposed upon the Estates Commissioners by the Act of 1903, and to what further extent are they imposed by the present Bill? I quoted the other day some observations of Mr. Justice Meredith, and I will not trouble the House with them again, because the noble and learned Lord alluded to the fact of my having done so, and fully admits that to a certain degree and in a certain sense the Commissioners do exercise judicial functions. But he considers that their administrative functions hold such a larger place in their duties that they ought to be treated in the main as being administrative and not judicial officers. I think it is perfectly true that so far as regards the occupation of their time a larger part of it is taken up by administrative duties than by anything that can be called judicial duties. On the other hand, even as it is now, their judicial duties are of importance, and to a certain extent, I think, would warrant their being treated as judicial officers. But that becomes very much more the case under the present Bill—less, perhaps, as the Bill has been amended by your Lordships, but still to a very considerable extent they will be exercising judicial functions under this Bill. The position is made, of course, more difficult—as, I think, noble Lords opposite will agree—by the position of the other Land Commissioners, who are separately treated; and also the fact that one of the present Commissioners is irremovable, although he comes under Parliamentary criticism, to a certain degree adds to the difficulty of arriving at a conclusion in this case. Certainly we never should uphold for a moment the notion that the Commissioners should be free from Parliamentary criticism, and, as your Lordships know, by an ingenious device, as far as Mr. Wrench is concerned, that state of things was arranged by putting a certain part of his salary on the Votes. We think that we are entitled to say that it is important, in the exercise of their functions, that the Commissioners should be absolutely independent, and it stands to reason—it is verbally as well as

  749
  actually true—that if they are dependent on the Government of the day they cannot act in an independent manner. I do not want to dwell upon a very unseemly and unpleasant episode to which my noble friend (Lord Hemphill) has already alluded—the fact that a letter was written to one of the Commissioners in terms of which I am quite certain noble Lords opposite do not approve, although we have not had, I think, any expression of opinion from any of them on the subject. But when officers of that description who are executive, and all the more when their functions are partially judicial, are exposed to attacks of that kind, it is not altogether surprising that we should endeavour to protect them so far as we can in the exercise of functions which I am afraid cannot tend to make them entirely popular, and which might place them in the exceedingly unpleasant position of having to choose between compromising their official career altogether at some future day and doing something which they believed to be unfortunate or wrong. Under these circumstances I am afraid I cannot agree to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsupported the Amendment, which he considered a very important one. He did not think the argument of his noble and learned friend had been met by the reply of the Lord President of the Council. He had not gathered that the noble Earl denied for one moment that these gentlemen were in a position which was entirely new in the annals of gentlemen performing functions such as theirs. He proposed to put them in the position County Court Judges. He had the greatest respect for all County Court Judges, and he recognised the tenure of their position, which was that their conduct could not be challenged, because, very rightly, they did not come upon the Votes. The noble Earl had alluded, in somewhat sneering terms, he thought, to the arrangement by which the head of the Land Commission, Mr. Wrench, had his salary increased in order that his actions might be criticised. He did not for one moment blame the noble Earl for making that statement, but at the same time he thought the Government
  750
  with which he was himself at that time associated was perfectly justified in giving Mr. Wrench that increase of salary in order that his conduct could be criticised if necessary. But His Majesty's Government were now taking a totally new departure. They were proposing to put gentlemen who were in a position to a certain extent like that of Mr. Wrench in a position which precluded them from being criticised by the House of Commons for any of their actions. He was the last person to say one word of a derogatory character with regard to any civil servant; he had had too much experience of civil servants not to have the highest possible appreciation of them and of the difficulties under which they laboured in not being able to defend themselves. But when it was proposed to change entirely the status of these gentlemen, he would say the Government were not supported by opinion in Ireland, and certainly not so far as those members of the Judicial Bench whose names were well known to their Lordships were concerned. Some time ago—he thought it was during the time that the late Government were in power—they found that Mr. Finucane did not hesitate to criticise the action of the Lord-Lieutenant. He declared that the Lord-Lieutenant had no right to deal with the question of intimidation with regard to the conduct of the Commissioners in letting land to tenants or to people who had been guilty of intimidation. He believed Mr. Finucane made the statement that the Lord-Lieutenant had exceeded his rights. He was at a loss to know why Mr. Finucane should criticise the action of the Lord-Lieutenant in regard to the regulations which were passed under the Act of 1903. He believed he would be justified in going a little further and saying that a well-known Judge in Ireland (Mr. Ross) had declared that the claims of these Estates Commissioners to have a judicial status was nothing more nor less than absurd. Under these circumstances, viewing the matter not from the layman's point of view merely, but also from the point of view of the Judge and from the ordinary point of view, he considered that to give these gentlemen a status absolutely unknown previously was an action on their Lordships' part which he did

  751
  not think would be justified by anyone who carefully considered the matter. His noble and learned friend (Lord Atkinson) had pointed out the great difficulty they were confronted with in giving these gentlemen that status, and he hoped that before their Lordships rejected the proposal of his noble and learned friend they would very carefully consider the matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not question that this is an important point, but it is after all a very short and simple one. These Estates Commissioners are gentlemen who partake of a judicial character, or at least, if this Bill is passed, they will partake of a judicial character, and it seems to me that they already do. They unquestionably also partake of an administrative character. They have to deal with peat-bogs, as the noble and learned Lord has said, and that is hardly a judicial function. They stand in two separate relations. As a rule you have those two separate functions jealously kept asunder, but apparently in Ireland—and I suppose we may expect it elsewhere, too—those functions are mingled. So far as their administrative functions are concerned, it is no doubt desirable not to have fixity of tenure, but so far as their judicial functions are concerned, fixity of tenure is desirable. I do not know how you are to deal with the amphibious animal betwixt and between. The reason why we think these gentlemen are to be treated as pre-eminently authorities of a judicial rather than of an administrative character is that under this Bill their functions are liable to be particularly invidious, and to expose them to a great deal of obloquy and pressure. Naturally it is a question upon which differences of opinion may be expected, but if I had to form an opinion upon any one circumstance, it would be the last circumstance adverted to by my noble friend (Lord Crewe.) When any gentleman in a position such as I have described is liable to receive bullying and offensive letters threatening him with consequences in the event of a change of Government—I do not wish to use any epithets, but I merely remind your Lordships of the possible effect of putting a man not only in a position in which no person ought to place another, but also into a position
  752
  in which it is very difficult for him to carry out impartially so much of his duties as are concerned with judicial functions.
  LORD CLONBROCKsaid he had no intention of addressing their Lordships upon the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, because it dealt with aspects of the matter about which he did not pretend to know anything. But he had been anxious from the beginning to know what reason was to be given for this change. It appeared from what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, and from the Lord President of the Council, that the change was proposed owing to the fears of gentlemen that in the exercise of their duties they might receive unpleasant letters. Allusion had been made to a certain letter. They all knew of the letter, and it was in his opinion excessively ill-judged. He in no way wished to defend that letter, and the only excuse that could be made for it was that it was a private letter, from a private Member of Parliament, that it was never intended to be made public, and it could not be supposed for one moment that any future Government would be guided by the fact that such a letter was written, or by its sentiments. It had never been the case that on any change of Government officials occupying positions such as those of the Estates Commissioners had been removed without due cause and reason shown. No Government would do such a thing. If the Estates Commissioners were to be exposed to all this obloquy, and were so sensitive to it, he thought they ought to be grateful to that House for the efforts that had been made to-night to limit their sphere of action, for they would now be able to say "It is not our fault; we could have exterminated all the planters and driven them into the Shannon, or at least, over it, we could have taken all the most cherished possessions of the landlords, if it had not been for the unprincipled conduct of the House of Lords."
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid he would like to ask one question with reference to what the noble Earl had said—that the Estates Commissioners were dependent

  753
  upon the Government of the day. If they were to be the same as County Court Judges, could the Lord-Lieutenant make regulations with regard to them—because he believed he could not make regulations with regard to the County Court Judges.
  LORD HEMPHILLthought they must all admit that the present Bill imposed very important judicial functions upon the Estates Commissioners. Whatever their status was under previous Acts, it was clear that under the present Bill they were to determine whether or not a particular case was a proper one for the application of the very strong compulsory powers conferred by the Act of Parliament. That in itself was unquestionably a judicial act. The determination of their own mere motion of the price that was to be paid to the owner of the land for the land taken from him was also a judicial act of the greatest importance. Therefore, he thought it was in vain to quibble about words, or to discuss whether the fact that they had to estimate the value of a peat-bog for a particular purpose was or was not applicable to the consideration of the present clause. Undoubtedly most important judicial functions were imposed upon the Estates Commissioners by the Bill. That being so, did not the ordinary principle, upon which the greatness and security of the administration of the law both in England and in Ireland depended, apply—namely, that a good Judge must be independent of both sides in any question upon which he had to decide. Judges, after all, were only human, and if pressure was put by the Ministry of the day—he did not mean to say any particular Ministry would stoop to such a thing, but by the particular Party in power—if the Party in power happened to be a landlords' Party and pressure was put upon, and hints given to, the Judge that he should consider how far the interests of landlords should be preserved, or if on the other hand, a Party—say the Nationalist Party—was in power, and pressure was brought to bear by the Nationalists that they should deal with a liberal and generous hand with the tenants, was it not placing a Commissioner in a position in which no one deserving the name of a Judge, or exercis-
  754
  ing a judicial function, should be placed? That used to be the case with regard to the County Court Judges about whom so much had been heard. For nearly 100 years they were removable, but when their powers were increased and their jurisdiction extended, they were placed upon a footing with the superior Judges, and made irremovable, except upon Addresses from both Houses of Parliament. That had been found to work a certain inconvenience, because with regard to either the County Court Judges or the superior Judges, no matter how old a Judge became, no matter how he might have lost the faculty of memory, or of sight, or of hearing, there was no power to remove him except by an Address from both Houses of Parliament. His noble and learned friend, who was conversant with everything connected with the history of the law in Ireland, knew that there were instances within living memory in which attempts had been made to drive Judges of the Superior Court off the Bench, and they had failed, because the House of Commons would not vote the Address. To obviate that, there was a provision introduced later with regard to County Court Judges, and that was the reason why County Court Judges were introduced into the present clause, which enabled the Lord-Lieutenant in Dublin in Council, on the certificate of the Lord Chancellor that a County Court Judge was physically or mentally incapable of discharging his duty, to remove that Judge without going to Parliament. Both his noble and learned friends could mention to their Lordships a case in which that power was exercised, and where a County Court Judge was moved because unfortunately he became mentally incapable of discharging his duties. That was the reason why the Judges of the superior Courts were not mentioned in this particular Bill, but that Judges of the County Court were. Apart from all precedent—throwing overboard altogether what was done in other Acts of Parliament—appealing to the tribunal of natural justice, which was a tribunal that never erred or failed—gentlemen who were entrusted with the discharge of such important duties as the Bill proposed to entrust these Commissioners should be placed beyond the suspicion of partiality, and should be

  755
  put upon the footing of Caesar's wife. No matter how upright and pure they were, there should not be a breath of suspicion, even emanating from a Member of the House of Commons, that Mr. Commissioner so-and-so was the landlords' friend or that Mr. Commissioner so-and-so was the tenants' partisan.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I shall give my vote to my noble and learned friend behind me, upon the ground that, although these gentlemen have duties both of a judicial and an executive character, the executive duties are those which seem to me to be largely preponderant. I think we may fairly say that the result of what has already been done in the way of amending this Bill has been to diminish pro tanto the importance of the judicial functions which will belong to these gentlemen. I do not think that in this country we are strangers to the idea of officials who hold high executive posts and who also have judicial work thrown upon them but who are nevertheless not irremovable. Am I wrong in thinking, for example, that, let us say, the President of the Board of Education, or the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have duties which may fairly be described as of a judicial complexion? But I am not aware that it is thought necessary to render them irremovable, except for gross misconduct. I rise, however, at this moment mainly because I want to emphasise one observation which fell from the noble and learned Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor). He dwelt upon the fact that in Ireland it was by no means uncommon to see judicial and executive work performed by the same set of people. I am afraid I must say that that is, to my mind, one of the most unfortunate features of our agrarian legislation for that part of the United Kingdom. It is because you have, all over the country, men who have really not had any judicial training, who have no judicial attainments, and who are yet placed in the positions of Judges, able to dispose of interests the importance of which may be measured not by thousands but by millions of pounds, that the whole system of our agrarian legislation in Ireland has become liable to that cloud of suspicion which has
  756
  never ceased to surround it from the unfortunate day on which it was first set on foot. As I have said, I shall vote for the Amendment, as I regard these officials as mainly executive officers.
  LORD DENMANsaid he desired to give, not his own opinion on this point, but that of a very distinguished member of the Party opposite, a noble Lord who was a great authority on questions of land tenure in Ireland and an even greater authority, perhaps, on questions connected with the fiscal policy of this country—he meant Lord Robertson. When he was speaking in the debates of 1903, he then appeared to be under the impression that the Estates Commissioners should be treated as a judicial body, and required some protection. He would like to quote to the House what Lord Robertson said on that occasion—
  "As to the other protection he pointed out that the Chief Secretary had emphasised that the Estates Commissioners would not be a judicial body which could stand up against the storm of public opinion, but it would be under the control of the Lord-Lieutenant, which meant under the control of the Government of the day. Therefore the Commissioners were exposed to the direct current of political influence, which might be adverse to the interests of a class whom Parliament was bound in honour to protect."
  That was the opinion of the noble and learned Lord in 1903, when he had felt that the Estates Commissioners might be attacked for giving protection to the planters. He hoped that the noble and learned Lord's opinion had not changed since. He confessed that he would be rather interested to see how he voted upon the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson. He (Lord Denman) did not profess to be able to live up to the ideal of a pattern Liberal which the noble and learned Lord had laid down the other night; but he had his own ideas of political consistency, and if the noble and learned Lord went into the lobby against the Government upon this point, he confessed that he would have no faith in political consistency left.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid he would like an answer to the question he had put. As he had said before, the Estates

  757
  Commissioners were dependent upon the Government of the day. Could the Lord-Lieutenant, who also was dependent upon and appointed by the Government of the day, make regulations for these Commissioners when they had the same tenure as a County Court Judge?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I imagine that that entirely depends upon the
  construction of the Act of 1903. I should suppose that the Lord-Lieutenant will issue regulations so far as regards their administrative functions but not so far as their functions are judicial.
  On Question, whether Clause 13 should stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 127.

  CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Allendale, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Castletown, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

  Lyveden, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Deaman, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Craven, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Swaythling, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

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

  Weardale, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.

  Welby, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Wicklow, E.

  Deramore, L.

  Argyll, D.

  Desborough, L.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Digby, L.

  Wellington, D

  Falkland, V.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Dunalley, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Goschen, V.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Camben, M.

  Halifax, V.

  Dunleath, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Hampden, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Hill, V.

  Estcourt, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Faber, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Forester, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Bandon, E.

  Addington, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Kelvin, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Cawdor, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Kensington, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Kesteven, L.

  Darnley, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Langford, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Derby, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Devon, E.

  Basing, L.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

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

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Belper, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Lurgan, L.

  Lindsey, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Macnaghten, L.

  Londesborough, E.

  Carew, L.

  Massy, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Middleton, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Morton, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Newlands, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  North, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Onslow, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Plymouth, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Romney, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Saint Germans, E.

  Collins, L.

  Rathdonnell, L.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Rathmore, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  De Freyne, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Sanderson, L.

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

  Templemore, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Ventry, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Waleran, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 14 and 15 agreed to.
  After Clause 15:—
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved to insert the following new Clause:—"Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect the rights, priority, interests, or claims of the vendors and purchasers of lands whose agreements for the sale thereof under the Land Purchase Acts have been lodged with the Land Commission, and advances in respect of which have not been refused, to have the said agreements carried out, and the purchase money payable thereunder duly paid, and the land purchased duly vested in the purchaser." He said that he rose with no intention whatever of making any Motion to embarrass the Government in the position in which they found themselves with regard to the payments which might become due under this Bill, but he thought it due to the House that it should know in some way how it was proposed to deal with the very large sums at present outstanding. He did not suppose that any Government had ever found itself, in recent years, in the position in which His Majesty's Government were to-day. At present under the Land Purchase Act of 1903 there was a sum of £30,000,000 for which agreements had been lodged and which might become, and was rapidly becoming, payable, and which, in the opinion of the Estates Commissioners, was likely to be payable at the rate of £10,000,000 per annum. Then, under the present Bill, it was assumed that 2,000 evicted tenants would be replaced in their holdings and that probably £2,000,000 purchase money would become payable. One could not help asking in what priority this large payment was to be made. Of course, it was perfectly possible to take the view to some extent which had been taken by his noble friend on the cross benches who had put off his Amendment till the Report stage. He had argued that, if the land was taken compulsorily, the money should be forthwith lodged,
  760
  and that no further step should be taken till the man from whom the laud was compulsorily taken had been duly paid. On the other hand, however, there had been agreements involving £30,000,000 made under the Act of four years ago. All of those agreements so far as they knew were valid and were merely waiting for the formal steps to be taken to prove the title and for the other necessary evidence to be forthcoming. His Majesty's Government were bound to pay for all of those not in stock but in cash at the moment of completion. It was hardly germane to the subject, but he personally had no agreement lodged under the Act of 1903, so that so far as he knew he would not find himself in any way touched by this Bill when it became an Act. At the same time, he felt that, as a matter of right and justice, they ought the know what were the views of the Government with regard to financing the two Bills. They stood to-day in an unequalled position for asking the question. He believed that unfortunately the credit of the Government sunk lower on Saturday than it had ever done in the memory of most of those sitting in that House. He believed it was the sad truth that the credit of the Government stood lower for the first time than that of one or two other Powers. Therefore, in regard to the actual financing of this Bill, borrowing would be a very serious measure, for borrowing at anything like the present price of 81 or 82 would involve such a sacrifice of capital that the funds on which the authors of the Bill of 1903 relied would be exhausted within twelve months. The fact, however, remained that the wolf was at the door, and, unless they were prepared to take some steps the financing of the Act of 1903 could not be carried out. What would be the effect of that? He was not thinking only of the landlord. Of course, it was very unfortunate for the landlord who had signed an agreement to part with his land that the capital should be hung up for several years. That had been the case with many landlords, and it was the case with landlords who had

  761
  large mortgages out at 4½ per cent. and who only received 3½ per cent. from the Government. They were not only actually out of pocket, but unable to pay off their mortgages. That was a hard position for them to be placed in. Again, the tenants themselves were not unduly favoured. Every tenant after filing his agreement paid a certain sum in interest, and that sum was 5s. per cent. heavier than he would pay the day the capital was settled. He therefore need hardly put it to men of experience like noble Lords opposite that this state of affairs in which both parties to the bargain were heavy losers was one which could not continue indefinitely without causing unrest and disquiet. That unrest and disquiet would be largely increased if it was found that their £30,000,000 of agreements were kept waiting whilst £2,000,000 available cash was used for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants, on terms infinitely more favourable than the purchasing tenants had been enjoying, in holdings from which they were evicted under circumstances which Lord Inchiquin had described in his own case with great effect. He knew it was said that at the moment of completion they might find the necessary cash, and that what was wanted was the actual completion of the agreements, but the Commissioners, whose evidence had been so often alluded to in the course of the debate, had made it perfectly plain that they could not carry through the agreements without delay unless they were given the proper staff. That staff was not given to them, and there was, therefore, the certainty that existing agreements must be still further postponed. He was sure he need only invite it from the Lord President to extract from him some information with regard to this matter. He had put down his Amendment which he believed represented the justice of the case. He did not believe any man, landlord or tenant, who had come to terms and had signed an agreement under the Act of 1903, ought to have his power of completing the agreement postponed by any action their Lordships might see fit to allow under the Bill. There would inevitably be a very grave postponement
  762
  unless the Government were able to announce some financial provisions of which they had not yet heard. He moved his clause in the hopes of hearing some explanation.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause: Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect the rights, priority, interests or claims of the vendors and purchasers of lands whose agreements for the sale thereof under the Land Purchase Acts have been lodged with the Land Commission, and advances in respect of which have not been refused, to have the said agreements carried out, and the purchase money payable thereunder duly paid, and the land purchased duly vested in the purchaser.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I will do my best to satisfy the very natural curiosity of the noble Lord, although I am afraid he may not find my reply as complete as he would wish. There are two sets of people who are concerned directly in these transactions, viz., the Commissioners and His Majesty's Treasury. The Commissioners have to deal with three different kinds of things. They deal with the ordinary class of agreement under the first three sections of the Bill, and then they have to deal with cases where they themselves acquire estates under Section 6, and the Land Judge cases under Section 7 of the Land Act of 1903. They proceed with these three classes of cases concurrently. The noble Viscount talked about insufficient staff. The cases which I understand are the only ones in which noble Lords opposite are really interested are those in which there are agreements between landlord and tenant. So far as those are concerned, the Estates Commissioners are over-staffed. The twenty-one sub-Commissioners they have are entirely competent to deal with those cases as fast as they can be brought to maturity. It is only owing to the cases where they themselves are acquiring estates and also to some extent to the prospect of their having to deal with cases under this Bill that the fourteen other Commissioners are all kept on. If it were not for that fact it would not be necessary to retain the extra fourteen. That is quite apart from those whose term

  763
  of work came to an end, as noble Lords opposite will remember, on 1st August this year. When the noble Viscount talked about priority, I wondered what was exactly in his mind. A case may be prior in the sense of its having been agreed upon at on early date, but it may take a very long time to mature. In the meantime other cases are being dealt with, and they may in a sense pass one in front of another. The whole set of transactions are dealt with rather as matters are dealt with in a solicitor's office. It is a great mistake to think of these cases as if they were of a person ordering a coat, or a pair of trousers, having the garment made, completed, and sent home. The fact is a great number of these transactions are going on at the same time, and it is extremely difficult to say which can be regarded as prior to another. It is important to bear that in mind, because there is, I think, no little confusion on that point. The priority is to a great extent relative, partly owing to the fact that inspection takes longer in some instances than in others, and particularly to the fact that proof of title is a very much longer affair in some cases than in others. That is so far as the share of the Estates Commissioners in the transactions is concerned. Then you come to the Treasury. The early part of the noble Lord's speech rather gave the House to understand that there were a number of outstanding cases for which no money was forthcoming. That is not so. There is no case outstanding in that sense. There has never been a case of purchase which could not be carried through because there was no money to do it. The Treasury have made provision for all cases which can possibly come forward this year. The noble Lord spoke of the exceedingly low point which our national funds reached on Saturday last. I do not think he was correct in saying there are any funds of another country which can possibly be compared with ours which stand at a higher rate than ours do; at least, I should await the name of the country with interest—that is to say, the name of any country whose funds are on the same footing as our funds are. That,
  764
  however, is a mere passing observation. The Treasury, as I say, have so far refused no advances, and they hope they will be able to place themselves in a position which will prevent their keeping anybody waiting for money when the cases are carried through. I think it is at any rate safe to say that much, and it is really all that concerns us in the present Bill. I am not able to give the noble Lord much information as to the future working of the Act of 1903, which after all is an entirely separate matter; but, so far as this particular measure is concerned, I can tell him, I think quite categorically, that the transactions under it, if the Bill becomes law, will not retard or in any way interfere with, so far as the Treasury is concerned, any transactions under the Act of 1903. The whole matter is going to be very carefully looked into this autumn in view of the notorious facts to which the noble Viscount has called attention, and I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer as soon as he can will tell the country, noble Lords, and anybody else interested what provision the Treasury propose to make for dealing with the undoubted difficulty which has arisen under the Act of 1903.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid he quite realised the satisfactory nature of the assurance they had just received from the noble Lord, but he would like him, if he could, to make it a little more definite. Of course, it was quite possible to say nobody would be deprived of what was due to them under the Act of 1903, if, after it was passed, the Commissioners proceeded to deal with questions under this Act. Were they, however, to understand that no precedence would be given to applications of evicted tenants already lodged under the Act of 1903? And could they take it as an assurance from the Lord President of the Council that whatever money was needed for cases which became complete before Parliament met again would be provided by the Government? They quite understood that during the autumn the Government were going to review the whole situation, which was a very difficult one, and that they would

  765
  probably submit proposals, but might they understand that in the meantime steps would be taken to prevent the delaying of those applications which had already been made—those made before 1st May—and that precedence would not be given to applications made under this Bill?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I will reply as categorically as I can to the noble Viscount. I understand it is the intention to carry on these transactions absolutely concurrently with the other sort of transaction. I do not see how, after the explanation I gave of the way in which the business of the office is carried on, I can put it higher than that. As regards the point of the Treasury Funds, all that I have been authorised to say—I will inquire whether any further assurance can be given—is that the Treasury have arranged to meet all claims made upon them up to the end of the year, but whether that means the financial year or the calendar year I confess I do not know.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There is just one point I should like to have cleared up. The noble Earl told us a moment ago that no instance could be cited in which, when a case had been properly investigated, the money had not been forthcoming. I take it from him that that is so, but what many of us have been led to believe is that there has been a great deal of delay in investigating cases on account of insufficient staff. That is the way in which the delay which has given cause for so much dissatisfaction has arisen.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not think that is admitted.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he noticed that the noble Earl, in the course of his remarks, stated that the Estates Commissioners' branch was overstaffed. If he was right in his recollection, Mr. Finucane had stated that they were understaffed and
  766
  that if they had a larger staff they could have passed a good many more cases through the Courts. He was at a loss to reconcile this statement with that of the noble Earl. He merely wished to reiterate what had been said by his noble friend, Viscount Midleton. There was considerable anxiety in Ireland as to the manner in which the provisions of this Bill were going to be carried out. He had told their Lordships that at the present time there was to some extent a block in the carrying out of the provisions of the Act of 1903. Both landlords and tenants were suffering in consequence, and they therefore contended that these cases ought to have precedence over any other cases. He certainly understood the difficulty with regard to the Treasury, but he thought they ought to have the assurance that the provisions of the Act of 1903 would have precedence over any provisions in this Bill. Whatever was done in regard to this Bill ought not to interfere with the agreements entered into under the Act of 1903, the delay in regard to which was causing great damage to the owners and occupiers. How did the noble Earl reconcile his statement with that of Mr. Finucane?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I will explain that. What I said with regard to over-staffing was that so far as the transactions which particularly interest noble Lords opposite were concerned—that is to say the ordinary agreements—I understood that the staff is entirely sufficient to cope with them. Concurrently with these, however, the Estates Commissioners have been carrying on that considerable transaction under Section 6 of the Act of 1903 by which they have acquired untenanted land themselves. When the noble Lord asks whether these transactions are to be postponed, the answer is "No." What we say is they will be carried on concurrently.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONasked leave to withdraw his proposed new clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Proposed schedule—

  Particulars of Decisions and Returns.

  COUNTY.

  Name of Estate on which former holding is situate.

  Name of Tenant.

  Townland on which former holding is situate.

  Date of Eviction.

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  Annual rent of former holding at date of eviction (as stated in tenant's application).

  Annuity payable on purchase holding.

  Expenditure sanctioned out of Reserve Fund.

  Area.

  Advances repayable as part of Land Purchase Annuities.

  Free Grants not repayable.

  Former Holding.

  New Holding.

  Buildings and other improvements.

  Buildings and other improvements.

  Stock, farm implements.

  Compensation to outgoing tenants on surrendering holdings.

  (6)

  (7)

  (8)

  (9)

  (10)

  (11)

  (12)

  (13)

  Lord Clonbrock.)

  Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 168.)

  EVIDENCE (COLONIAL STATUTES) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Wednesday next.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid there were certain Amendments which he had put down at this stage, but they were merely in order to comply with the promise he gave in Committee in regard to the Amendment of the Rule-making clause.
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked the noble and learned Lord whether he thought it would be competent for the Rule-making authority to make a provision to explain or regulate the working of Section 8 of the Bill, The Lord Chancellor had indicated to him that Section 8 gave ample powers for asking Judges to give a report and also their opinion. He had indicated to the noble and learned Lord that he did not

  769
  think Section 8 was absolutely complete and satisfactory and that he was determined to move Amendments at this stage. He, however, made up his mind subsequently not to do so, but to leave it entirely at the mercy and discretion of the Lord Chancellor. He would be glad to know if the Lord Chancellor thought Section 8 was complete, and if in making rules there would be power to ask for the views of the Judges at the criminal trial, and also at the same time to be furnished with their opinion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It seems to me that under Section 8 the Chairman of the Court can, if he likes, under all the circumstances, make a report and that also if the Court of Criminal Appeal wants his opinion they can unquestionably have it under Section 8 as it stands. There is, therefore, absolute power both for him to give and for them to require. The rules of the Court so prescribe the method in which notes are to be prepared and in which the report is to be furnished if it is asked for. I do not think the clause really requires amendment in the sense in which my noble friend asks.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 11, line 18, to leave out the words 'The Rule Committee under this Act may make.'"
  "Line 19, to leave out the words 'thereof, and rules' and insert the words 'of this Act shall be made, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor, by the Lord Chief Justice and the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal, or any three of such Judges, with the advice and assistance of the Committee hereinafter mentioned. Rules.'"
  "Line 30 to leave out from the beginning of Subsection (2) to the first 'a' in line 32 and insert the words 'The Committee hereinbefore referred to shall consist of.'"
  "Line 39, to leave out the words 'for such time' and insert the words 'The term of office of any person who is a member of the Committee by virtue of appointment shall be such.'"
  "Line 41, to leave out the words 'The Rule Committee may act by any five of their number.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Bill to be read 3a on Friday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 169.)

  PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  LIGHTS ON VEHICLES BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHasked whether it was proposed to allow the Government an opportunity of altering the clause refusing to apply the Bill to Scotland. He understood that in the Standing Committee a promise was given that it would be put in a separate clause.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLthought the promise given was that the matter would be considered. They were quite ready to put in a clause if the noble Lord so wished it, but he understood that the noble Lord himself would make the proposal.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the next stage would be the Third Reading, and on it it was not customary to move Amendments without notice.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that if he could help he would take it whenever it suited the noble Lord. They had no desire to hurt the feelings of anybody.
  THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP)THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP) said the object of the Amendment of which he had given notice was to meet the objection raised by Lord Ludlow who in Committee of the Whole House moved a similar Amendment, and he believed that, after consultation, it had been found to meet the wishes of the noble Lord opposite.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 31, after the word 'rate' insert the following new subsection: '(5) In the application of this section to the county of London, the London County Council shall be substituted for the council of a borough, and the county fund for the borough fund or rate; und, in the application of this section to the City of London, the mayor, aldermen, and commons of that city, in common council assembled, shall be substituted for the council of a borough, and the Consolidated Rate for the borough fund or rate.'"—[Earl Beauchamp.]
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid the noble Lord had allowed him to consult him as to the exact form of the Amendment. He was a little anxious as to the working of it; but he had been informed that the expression "County of London" excluded the City of London, whereas the expression "the administrative County of London" included the City of London, and, subject to that assurance, he was quite ready to accept the Amendment.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 170.)

  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  The Lords following were named of the Select Committee, viz.:—

  D. Northumberland

  L. Fitzmaurice.

  E. Onslow.

  L. Allendale.

  V. Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore.)

  The Committee to meet to-morrow, at half-past Two o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.

  BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  THE BELFAST RIOTS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg to ask a Question of the noble Marquess of which I have given him private notice. A telegram is to be seen in the next room—
  "Rioting still continues in Belfast. One woman has been fatally shot by the firing of the troops. The injured and wounded number hundreds, and the hospitals are full."
  I wish to ask the noble Marquess whether he has any information bearing upon the subject.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): I regret to say I have seen the telegraphic statement that has been published, but there is no information corroborative of the facts at the Irish Office.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
  Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 171.)

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTION FOR PROPELLING (POWER) BILL.
  Message to the Commons for copy of the Report, etc., of the Select Committee.
  House adjourned at a quarter-past Eleven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter-past Four o'clock