Sitting of 21 August 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (CHARGES, ETC.) BILL.
  Lords Amendment, in pursuance of the Order of the House [19th August] considered, and agreed to.

  YORK (MICKLEGATE STRAYS) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL [LORDS].
  Ordered, That in the case of the York (Micklegate Strays) (Re-committed) Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Bill, as amended, accordingly considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be nowread the Third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time' and passed, with Amendments.

  STANDING ORDER (PRIVATE BUSINESS).
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. EMMOTT,)moved a series of Amendments to Standing Orders. He explained that the alteration of Standing Order 5 was intended to place electric generating stations under the same regulations as Gas-works; with regard to Standing Order 36a, that had, he said, been practically in force a considerable time, Standing Order 38, while in respect of No. 98 the change had become desirable in view of

  817
  the fact that the meetings of the Committee of Selection and the Standing Orders Committee clashed sometimes, and the Chairman of the former Committee found himself in consequence of the increasing work of this Committee unable to attend. The other Amendments were mainly consequential, but he would be happy to give any explanation that might be asked for. He begged to move.
  SIR A. ACLAND HOODasked if the Amendments were to be put en bloc or separately, there were one or two on which the House ought to have some information?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the practice of his predecessor was, if no objection were taken, to put them en bloc, but if any objection were raised to any particular Amendment, then he put only those down to that Amendment. He proposed to follow that course to-day.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he would like to hear more about 29b and 98.
  MR. MORTONasked if these Amendments had appeared on the Paper before, and if they had been considered by a Committee or otherwise, and were all right.
  MR. EMMOTT: They have been considered in the ordinary way, and I certainly can say they are all right. They have been on the Paper two or three days. If it is desired to leave over any till tomorrow, I am quite willing. 29b I may say, merely means that the rural district council will have the plans deposited with them. That is pressed for by the Department of Agriculture. With regard to 98, the Chairman of the Committee of Selection finds it almost impossible to attend the meetings of the Standing Orders Committee.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he was satisfied with regard to 29b, but as regards 98 he would prefer it should stand over till the next day.
  MR. EMMOTT: Certainly.
  Standing Order 5 was read, and amended, in line 4, by leaving out the
  818
  word "or," and by inserting after the word "Disease," the words "or station for generating electrical energy."
  In line 8, by leaving out the first word "or," and by inserting after the word "Hospital," the words "or generating station," and by leaving out from the word "constructed," to the end of the Standing Order.
  Standing Order 15 was read, and amended, in line 5, by leaving out the words "on specified lands."
  Standing Order 29 was read, and amended, in paragraph (b), line 1, by inserting, after the word "Borough," the words "or any Rural District."
  In paragraph (d), line 3, by leaving out the words "and with the clerk of the district council."
  Standing Order 33 was read, and amended, in paragraph (1), line 2, by leaving out the words "at the Local Government Board," and by inserting, after paragraph (1), the following new paragraph—
  "(2) Of every Private Bill relating to England and Wales, at the Office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and at the Local Government Board," and by leaving out paragraph (7).
  In paragraph (10), line 1, by leaving out from the word "Bill," to the end of the Paragraph, and inserting the words "relating to England and Wales which in any manner affects education or educational endowments, or alters the boundary of any county, borough, or urban district, or affects the incidence of any local rate out of which any educational expenditure is payable, at the Office of the Board of Education."
  Ordered, That on or before the thirty-first day of December copies of the estimates of expenditure for any permanent works proposed to be executed by any municipal corporation, district council, joint board or joint committee, or other local authority in England or Wales shall be deposited at the Private Bill Office, and at the Office of the Board of

  819
  Trade or of the Local Government Board, as the case may
  require.
  The estimates shall be in the following form, or as near thereto as circumstances may permit:—

  Estimates for Permanent Works.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Purchase of land and casements

  Buildings (specifying generally their nature)

  Reservoirs, filter beds, &c.

  Tunnels, embankments, dams, etc.

  Trunk mains and main sewers

  Other mains, pipes, sewers, and sewage disposal works

  Other works grouped with regard to the probable life of the works

  If any moneys are required to be borrowed to meet any excess of expenditure previously authorised by Parliament, the Board of Trade, or the Local Government Board, there shall be deposited with the said estimates a statement of the purposes and reasons for the borrowing.
  Together with the said estimates there shall be deposited a statement showing the following particulars with respect to the district of the local authority, that is to say: (a) area of the district; (b) population according to the last census; (c) rateable and assessable value according to the last valuation list; (d) rates made in the district during the last preceding financial year; (e) the sum of the balances of outstanding loans contracted by the local authority; and (f) the amount of the outstanding loans to which the limitation of section two hundred and thirty-four of The Public Health Act, 1875, applies.
  Resolved, That this Order be a Standing Order of this House.
  Standing Order 38 was read, and amended, in page 66, lines 33 and 34, by leaving out the words "as regards London, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and."
  In line 35, by leaving out the word, "(outside London)."
  Standing Order 84 was read, and amended, in line 4, by leaving out from the word "deposited," to the end of the Order, and inserting the words "at every
  820
  office at which it was deposited under Standing Orders 33 and 34, or would be required to be deposited under those Orders if it had been originally introduced as amended in Committee."
  Standing Order 172 was read, and amended, at the end, by adding the words—
  Copies of the estimates and statements deposited in accordance with Standing Order 36a shall be laid before the Committee for the purposes of this Order.
  Standing Order 187 was read, and amended, in line 4, by leaving out the word 'or."
  In line 5, by inserting after the word "disease," the words "or station for generating electrical energy."
  In line 7, by leaving out the first word "or," and inserting, after the word "Hospital," the words "or generating station."
  In line 8, by leaving out from the word "constructed," to the end of the standing Order.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  LANARKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS]
  Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill, with an Amendment; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill, with Amendments.
PETITIONS.
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
  Petition from London and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Supplementary Regulation for Secondary Schools in England, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  HIGHER EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (APPLICATION OF FUNDS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1906; Mr. Mc Kenna]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 325.]
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 20th August; Mr. Burns]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 326.]
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Memorandum on the Militia and Yeomanry [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Advisory Board, London School of Economics, on the First Course, at the London School of Economics, January to July, 1907, for the Training of Officers for the Higher Appointments on the Administrative Staff of the Army and for the Charge of Departmental Services [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONTRACTS.)
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 20th June; Sir Howard Vincent]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 327.]
  TREATY SERIES (No. 24, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Supplementary Agreement between the United Kingdom and Sweden for the Mutual Surrender of Fugitive Criminals; signed at London 2nd July, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Return ordered, "of all the Draft Provisional orders under the Private
  822
  Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which in the session of 1907 have been reported on by Commissioners together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last day of the sittings in each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before the Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which ware reported to have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders the Preamble; of which were reported to have been not proved. "—(Mr. Sinclair.)

VISCOUNT GORT.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of John Standish Surtees Prendergast, Viscount Gort in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess who leads the House a question of which I have given him private notice. It has reference to the further proceedings of this House in regard to the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill. Your Lordships will recollect that on the 14th instant an Amendment to the Second Reading of that Bill was moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and after that Amendment had been for some time under discussion, the House accepted by a large majority a Motion for the adjournment of the debate. The Question I wish to ask is whether the noble Marquess is able to offer to us any suggestion as to the moment at which the debate might conveniently be resumed.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I should like to recall to your Lordships' recollection a little more than my noble friend has done the position in which this matter stood when the debate was adjourned. As my noble friend has said, Lord Balfour of Burleigh moved an Amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill. The effect of that Amendment, if it should be carried, would be the destruction of the Bill. The debate occupied one night and was then adjourned and taken up on the following day. Late in the following day, about the time when we might naturally have expected that the Leader of the Opposition would rise to conclude the debate on his side, my noble friend opposite rose and made a speech strongly criticising the Bill, just the sort of speech we should have expected he would make, and then
702
he moved the adjournment. But before the noble Marquess rose the noble Earl opposite, Lord Cawdor, made some remarks upon the Bill, and towards the end of his speech he suggested to Lord Balfour of Burleigh that he should withdraw his Amendment and that the Bill should be read a second time. He then went on to say that what the noble Lords opposite proposed was to apply to the Lowlands of Scotland the provisions of the English Land Bill as they might be ultimately determined in this House, and then by some process to create a new Crofters Bill out of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, and to pass that with a view to dealing with purely crofter districts, probably somewhat extended. The result, of course, of the suggestions of the noble Earl would have been to make one, or, it might be, two new Bills out of the Small Landholders Bill, and it appeared to me to be a very remarkable proposal. I understood from my noble friend who has just sat down that it was for the purpose of taking that course that he suggested the adjournment of the debate on the Second Reading. Well, my Lords, I felt bound to take strong objection and to enter a strong protest against what my noble friend proposed. I described it as unprecedented and intolerable, and to that description I adhere. The practice of Parliament is not a written law; it depends very greatly upon precedent. There are the Standing Orders, which stand in the place of statutes in regard to the general law, and the understood precedents of Parliamentary proceedings, which stand in the place of those constitutional doctrines by which we are all guided although they are not written; and it appeared to me that there was no precedent whatever for the course my noble friend took. My noble friend did not get up and move the adjournment of the debate and then sit down and take a division upon it, but he made his speech and at the end moved the adjournment of the debate sine die.
My Parliamentary memory is a rather long one, but I could not recollect any precedent for that course. I have since looked into the matter and consulted those who are good judges on such questions, and I still adhere to my opinion that the course taken by noble friend was without precedent. I understood that my

703
noble friend Lord Lansdowne desired to take that course in order to end by carrying out in respect to this Bill the proposals of Lord Cawdor; and the object, as I understood it, was that the Bill should be taken out of the hands of His Majesty's Government and made into one or two new Bills altogether different from the measure which we were discussing the other night. Against that proceeding, as representing his Majesty's Government, I still continue to protest. I think, my Lords, that it would be altogether inconsistent with the dignity of this or any other Government if it were to accept the view that the Opposition might, whenever it chose, use the cover of a Government Bill for the purpose of inserting within its sheets an entirely different set of provisions. I venture to think that that is not a course which it would be possible to induce the other House of Parliament in any circumstances to accept, and it certainly is not a course which it would be possible for the King's Government to accept here. Therefore, before answering the question of my noble friend, I must, in accordance with the common practice in Scotland, ask another. I beg to ask my noble friend what it is that he proposes to do with this Bill if it is again put down. If my noble friend will be good enough to tell me what his proposals on that point are, I shall then be able to answer his question.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am quite ready to reply to the very reasonable question which my noble friend has put to me. The reason I moved the adjournment of the debate was a perfectly simple one. We desired to have before us the whole of the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to small holdings before dealing with the particular suggestions contained in the Scottish Small Landholders Bill. We have now read the English Bill a second time without a division; we shall deal with it to-night and to-morrow in Committee; and therefore, in our opinion, by Friday next we should be fully in a position to consider the contents of the Scottish Bill. Then the noble Marquess asks me how, in our view, the Bill should be treated when its consideration is resumed by the House. Our policy remains that which was explained to the House last week by my noble friend Lord Cawdor and by myself. We still are
704
quite unprepared to retain those provisions of the Bill which would have the effect of creating a Land Court on the Irish model in Scotland. In the next place, we desire to preserve, perhaps with some slight changes, those clauses in the Bill which effect Amendments of the Scottish Crofters Acts. I think it quite likely that we may add one or two further suggestions of our own upon that point. In the next place, we think that provisions corresponding closely with the provisions of the English Small Holdings Bill might conveniently be applied to Scotland. That, my Lords, was the policy which we sketched the other day. That is our policy still. Then the noble Marquess asks me how we would proceed to give effect to that policy. My reply is that we should be prepared to give a Second Reading to the Bill, but with the openly avowed intention of amending it in the manner I have just described.
Only one word more, for I have, perhaps exceeded the limits which were proper upon an occasion of this sort. The noble Marquess complains of our action as being of an unprecedented character. May I, with great deference, suggest to him that he will find it extremely difficult to discover a precedent for the manner in which a number of measures of great complication and of much importance have been hurled at the head of this House in the last days of the session, and I think he will also find it somewhat difficult to discover another case in which one and the same Government in one and the same session has presented to Parliament no less than three land Bills, each of them constructed on wholly different principles.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, what has fallen from my noble friend is of a much less drastic description than that suggested by Lord Cawdor, as I understand him. I now understand that noble Lords opposite are prepared to deal with the Bill pretty much in the manner in which they discussed the Evicted Tenants Bill. They are prepared fairly to consider it and to propose Amendments in Committee, but not to substitute, as I understood they intended to do, an entirely new Bill, or new Bills, for this Bill. I do not wish in the least to stand in the way of the passage of this

705
Scottish Bill, which I believe to be a useful Bill much desired by the Scottish people. I know some noble Lords will not agree with me, but I cannot help that and I am used to it. But I should like to have some understanding on this point. The Bill has been discussed for two nights on Second Reading. There is also the Amendment of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, a perfectly intelligible and straightforward Amendment, objecting to the Bill and which, if it were carried, would destroy the Bill. I have no objection, after the explanation which we have received, to put the Bill down for Friday next, or even earlier, if, in order not to waste time at this period of the session, you will agree that the Bill should be read at once, with a division if you like, but that the vote should be taken without further discussion. I have not yet spoken on the BIll, but I am quite ready to waive my right and to let the Second Reading be taken at once. In that case it could be put down for tomorrow or Friday, and we could enter without delay on the Committee stage.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have no authority to bind my noble friends to complete silence when the debate on the Second Reading is resumed, but I think I may take it upon myself to say that, if the course which has just been discussed should be adopted, there is certainly not likely to be a prolonged Second Reading debate on that occasion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House when we are to consider the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I understand that the Committee stage of the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill has been put down for Friday. If the Scottish Land Bill is to be taken on Friday I should like to know which Bill will come first. There are several Amendments on the Paper to the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I feel considerable difficulty in putting down the Evicted Tenants Bill for Friday owing to the other business on the Paper for
706
that day. I should think the best course would be to set down the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Evicted Tenants Bill for to-morrow, when a time for their consideration can be appointed.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
York (Micklegate) Strays Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order). The Amendments proposed by the Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended). Amendments reported. Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended). Bill read 3a, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order). The Amendments proposed by the Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order XXXIX having been suspended). Amendments reported. Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended). Bill read 3a, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order). The Amendments proposed by the Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended). Amendments reported. Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill.—House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committees made: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended): Amendment reported: Bill read 3a, and passed and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill.—House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committees made: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended): Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill.—House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended): Amendment reported: Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order.) Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended). Bill read 3a, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order.) The Amendment proposed by the Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Amendments reported. Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Caledonian Railway Order Confirma-Bill; Kilmarnock Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8.) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order.)
LORD AVEBURYmoved an Amendment which he explained was word for
708
word taken from the unanimous Report of the Joint Committee of the two Houses presided over by Lord Crewe in 1903. The first recommendation was contained in the old Health Act but did not seem to he generally known, and it would, he thought, be convenient to repeat it. As regarded the other points, since his Amendment was placed on the Paper the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Local Government Board of Municipal Amendments had been published, and he was glad to see that all the points were recommended by the Departmental Committee. He understood that the Report was now under the consideration of the Board, and in these circumstances, if the noble Lord who represented the Department wished it, he would not press the matter for the moment, but would content himself with expressing a hope that the Board would adopt the recommendations of the Committee. Before sitting down there was one other point on which he wished to say a word. Now that municipalities carried on so many and such important commercial undertakings, there was a strong feeling that the auditors should have some training as accountants. Legal knowledge was no doubt important, but it was not all-sufficient. Many chambers of commerce were strongly of opinion that the Local Government Board auditors should, at any rate in such cases, have had training as accountants, and while the Board were studying the subject he hoped they would also take this into consideration.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 5, after '1888' to insert the words 'The auditor shall have the right of access to all such papers, books, accounts, vouchers, sanctions for loans, and so forth, as are necessary for his examination and certificate."
'He should be entitled to require from officers of the authority such information and explanation as may be necessary for the performance of his duties."
"He should certify—

that he has found the accounts in order or otherwise as the case may be;

that separate accounts of all trading undertakings have been kept and that every charge which each ought to bear has been duly debited;

that in his opinion the accounts issued present a true and correct view of the transactions and results of trading (if any) for the period under investigation;

that due provision has been made out of revenue for the repayment of

709
loans, that all items of receipts and expenditure and all known liabilities have been brought into account, and that the value of all assets has in all cases been fairly stated."—(Lord Avebury.)

Lord ALLENDALEsaid he was much obliged to the noble Lord for intimating that he would not press his Amendment. The matter was under the consideration of the Local Government Board, and he had been desired by the President to say that he was giving his careful attention to it with the advice at his disposal, but he wanted more time fully to consider the whole question. The first point in the Amendment was covered by the provisions in Section 247 (5) of the Public Health Act, 1875, which was applied to the audit of accounts of the corporation by Article X. (1) of the Provisional Order. The second point was also covered by the before-mentioned subsection, which provided a penalty in the case of any person neglecting or refusing to appear at the audit, and to make and sign a declaration as to the correctness of his accounts.
As to the points on which the auditor should certify, the first was practically covered by the auditor's certificate at the foot of the financial statement. If the accounts were not in order it would be the duty of the auditor to report the fact in his report to the corporation, which he was required to make, under the provisions of Section 247 (10) of the Public Health Act, 1875, within fourteen days after the completion of the audit. As to the next point, if the trading undertakings were carried on under the provisions of local Acts, the local Act generally required that separate accounts should be kept. The financial statement to be submitted at the audit required the transactions in respect of trading undertakings—i.e., tramways, railways, water, gas, and electric light—to be shown separately, and it therefore followed that separate accounts must be kept. As to the third point on which the auditor was to certify, he would point out that this Amendment seemed to deal with the abstract of the accounts issued by the local authority under the provisions of Subsection (10) of Section 247 of the Public Health Act, 1875. This abstract was issued quite independently of the auditors and some time after the audit had been completed.
710
With regard to the fourth and last point, the financial statement always provided for showing the repayment of loans out of revenue. The questions as to all receipts and expenditure and known liabilities being brought into account and the value of all assets being fairly stated, were matters which had been fully dealt with in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Accounts of Local Authorities. This Report had only just been presented and had not yet been fully considered by the Board. He assured the noble Lord that the whole matter was receiving the consideration of the Local Government Board in dealing with the Report of the Departmental Committee, and in these circumstances he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
LORD AVEBURYsaid that in the circumstances he would not press the Amendment, but he hoped that the very excellent recommendations of the Depart mental Committee would be adopted by the President of the Local Government Board.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Standing Committee negatived; then (Standing Order No. XXIX. having been suspended), Amendments reported. Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PRIVATE BILLS.—THE STANDING ORDERS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships, as is customary towards the end of every session, to agree to certain Amendments in the Standing Orders. I need hardly say that if any noble Lord desires an explanation of any of the points I shall be happy to give it. But I think it would suit the convenience of your Lordships if I formally moved that the Motion standing in my name be agreed to.
Moved, "That the Standing Orders be amended as follows:"
NOTE.—The words in SMALL CAPITALS are to be omitted, and the words printed in Italics are to be inserted.
5. In cases of Bills for constructing gasworks or sewage works, or works for the manufacture or conversion of the

711
residual products of gas or sewage, or for making or constructing a sewage farm, cemetery, burial ground, crematorium, destructor OR hospital for infectious disease or station for generating electrical energy, the notices shall set forth and specify the lands in or upon which such gasworks, sewage works, works for the manufacture or conversion of residual products, farms cemetry, burial ground, crematorium, destructor OR hospital or generating station, is intended to be made or constructed.
THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY IN THE CASE OF EVERY BILL IN WHICH COMPULSORY POWERS ARE SOUGHT, OF TAKING LANDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATION FOR GENERATING ELECTRICITY.
15. On or before the fifteenth day of December immediately preceding the application for a Bill for constructing gasworks or sewage works, or works for the manufacture or conversion of the residual products of gas or sewage, or for constructing any station for generating electrical energy ON SPECIFIED LANDS, OR FOR MAKING OR CONSTRUCTING A sewage farm, cemetery, burial ground, crematorium, destructor, or hospital for infectious disease, notice shall be served upon the owner and lessee of every dwelling-house situate within three hundred yards of the lands in or upon which such gasworks, sewage works, works for the manufacture or conversion of residual products, generating station, farm, cemetery, burial ground, crematorium, destructor or hospital, may be made or constructed.
26. In cases where tidal lands within the ordinary spring tides are to be acquired or in any way affected a copy of the plans and sections shall on or before the thirtieth day of November, immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited at the Office of the Harbour Department, Board of Trade, marked "Tidal Waters"; and on such copy all tidal waters shall be coloured blue, and, if the plans include any bridge across tidal waters, the dimensions as regards span and headway of the nearest bridges, if any, across the same tidal waters, above and below the proposed new bridge, shall be marked thereon; and in all such cases, such plans and sections shall be accompanied by an Ordnance map of the country over which the works are proposed to extend, or are
712
to be carried, with their position and extent, or route accurately laid down thereon:
And, in cases where the work is to be situate on the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river,so much of the plans and sections as relates to such river, a copy of the plans and sections shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited—

If the river is in England or Wales, at the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; or

If the River is in Scotland, at the Office of the Secretary for Scotland; or

If the river is in Ireland, at the Irish Office, Westminster, and at the Office of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, Dublin; and

IF THE RIVER IS SUBJECT TO A BOARD OF CONSERVATORS If there be a Board of Conservancy of the river at the Office also of such Board;

and, if the plans include any tunnel under or bridge over the river, the depth of such tunnel below the bed of the river, or the span and headway of such bridge shall be marked thereon; and such plans shall be accompanied by an Ordnance map of the country over which the works are proposed to extend or are to be carried, with their position and extent or route accurately laid down thereon.
29. Where under the powers of any Bill, any work is intended to be made, maintained, varied, extended, or enlarged, or any lands or houses may be taken or used compulsorily, or an improvement charge may be imposed, a copy of so much of the said plans and sections as relates to any of the areas hereinafter mentioned, together with a copy of so much of the book of reference as relates to such area, shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November, be deposited with the officer respectively hereinafter mentioned, that is to say, in the case of—

The City of London, or any borough in England or Wales, whether Metropolitan or other, with the town clerk of such city or borough;

713

Any urban district in England or Wales (not being a borough)or any rural district, with the clerk of the district council;

Any parish in England or Wales having a parish council, with the clerk of the parish council, or, if there is no clerk, with the chairman of that council;

Any parish in England or Wales comprised in a rural district. and not having a parish council, with the chairman of the parish meeting, AND WITH THE CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COUNCIL;

Any burgh in Scotland, with the town clerk;

Any parish in Scotland, outside a burgh, with the clerk of the parish council;

Any urban or rural district in Ireland, with the clerk of the district council.

Deposits on or before the 21st of December.
33. On or before the 21st day of December a printed copy shall be deposited

Of every Local Bill at the Office of his Majesty's Treasury AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD and at the General Post Office;

Of every Local Bill relating to England and Wales, at the Office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and at the Office of Local Government Board;

Of every Local Bill relating to Scotland or Ireland, at the Office of the Secretary for Scotland, or the Irish Office, as the case may be;

Of every Local Bill relating to railways, tramways, canals, gas, water, patents, or electric lighting, or for incorporating or giving powers to any company, at the Office of the Board of Trade;

Of every Local Bill relating to any dock, harbour, navigation, pier, port, or tidal waters, at the Office of the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade, marked "Tidal Waters";

Of every Bill of the Second Class whereby it is intended
714
to authorise the construction of any work on the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river, at the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and at the Office of the Conservators of the River (if any);

Of every Local Bill containing provisions with respect to the use of weights and measures, or the inspection or verification of the same at the Standards Department of the Board of Trade;

(7) OF EVERY LOCAL BILL.

RELATING TO A LOCAL COURT OR STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE;

WHEREBY POWER IS SOUGHT TO TAKE ANY CHURCH YARD, BURIAL GROUND, CEMETERY, OR ANY PART THEREOF, OR TO DISTURB THE BODIES INTERRED THEREIN, OR TO TAKE ANY COMMON OR COMMONABLE LAND;

PROMOTED BY ANY MUNICIPAL OR OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITY, BY WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO CREATE POWERS RELATING TO POLICE OR SANITARY REGULATIONS WHICH DEVIATE FROM, OR ARE IN EXTENSION OF, OR REPUGNANT TO THE GENERAL LAW, AT THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT;

(10) OF EVERY BILL AFFECTING ANY EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENT OR INSTITUTION OR SETTING UP OR TAKING POWER TO SET UP ANY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION OR INSTITUTION, OR WHEREBY THE BOUNDARIES OF ANY SCHOOL DISTRICT OR THE JURISDICTION OF ANY SCHOOL BOARD ARE AFFECTED, AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION;
(10)Of every Bill relating to England or Wales which in any manner affects education or educational endowments or alters the boundary of any county, borough, or urban district, or affects the incidence of any local rate out of which any educational expenditure is payable, at the Office of the Board of Education.

715
34a. On or before the twenty-first day of December a printed copy of every Local Bill of the first class which proposes to authorise any persons other than the road authority to break up or otherwise interfere with any streets or roads shall be deposited at the office of the road authority.
38. Where any Bill contains or revives or extends power to take compulsorily or by agreement any land in any local area as defined for the purposes of this Order, and such taking involves or may involve the taking in that area of any house or houses occupied either wholly or partially by thirty or more persons of the working class, whether as tenants or lodgers, the Promotors shall deposit in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, and at the Office of the Central Authority, on or before the twenty-first day of December, a statement giving the description and postal address of each of such houses, its number on the deposited plans, the parish in which it is situate, and the number (so far as can be ascertained) of persons of the working class residing in it, and also a copy of so much of the deposited plans (if any) as relates thereto.
This order shall not apply where a statement in pursuance of this Order was deposited in respect of the Act, the powers of which are proposed to be revived or extended.
For the purposes of this Order—
The expression "Central Authority" means as regards LONDON THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT, AND AS REGARDS England and Wales (OUTSIDE LONDON), the Local Government Board, as regards Scotland the Secretary for Scotland, and as regards Ireland the Local Government Board for Ireland:
The expression "Bill" includes a Bill confirming a Provisional Order.
7. PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE Consents of Proprietors or Members of Companies ALREADY CONSTITUTED,and of Persons named as Directors.
62. In the case of every Bill, whether originating in this House or in the House of Commons, promoted by a company
716
already constituted by Act of Parliament, proof shall be given before the Examiner, before the Second Reading of the Bill in this House, that the following requirements have been complied with, and the Examiner shall report accordingly:—
71 a. Any Local Bill or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons in which Amendments have been made during their progress through this House shall, if the Chairman of Committee& thinks fit, be referred to the Examiners to, consider and report whether the Standing Orders have been complied with in respect of such Amendments.
75. Every memorial complaining of non-compliance with the Standing Orders in respect of any Bill referred to the Examiners after First Reading, or in respect of any petition for additional provision,or by direction of the Chairman of Committees, shall, together with two copies thereof, be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments before twelve o'clock on the day preceeding that appointed for the examination.
96. Every Local Bill which is opposed and every OR Provisional Order Confirmation Bill as respects any opposed Orders scheduled thereto WHICH IS OPPOSED shall be referred to a Select Committe of five.
Cemeteries, Gasworks, &c.
139. In every Bill for making or constructing gasworks or sewage works or works for the manufacture or conversion of the residual products of gas or sewage, or for making or constructing, altering, or enlarging any sewage farm, cemetery, burial ground, crematorium, destructor, OR hospital for infectious diseases,or station for generating electric power, there shall be inserted a clause defining the lands in or upon which such gasworks, sewage works, farm, cemetery, burial ground, crematorium, destructor, OR hospital,or generating station may he made or constructed.
IN THE CASE OF A BILL AUTHORISING THE GENERATION, SUPPLY, OR USE OF ELECTRICITY THERE SHALL BE INSERTED EITHER A CLAUSE DEFINING THE LANDS IN OR UPON WHICH ANY STATION FOR GENERATING ELECTRICITY MAY BE CONSTRUCTED OR A CLAUSE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE UNDERTAKERS SHALL NOT BE

717
EXONERATED FROM ANY INDICTMENT, ACTION OR OTHER PROCEEDING FOR NUISANCE IN THE EVENT OF ANY NUISANCE BEING CAUSED OR PERMITTED BY THEM ON THE LANDS ON WHICH ANY SUCH GENERATING STATION MAY BE CONSTRUCTED.
143. A copy of every local Bill, if amended in Committee, shall, as so amended, be deposited at every office at which it was deposited under Standing Orders 33 and 34, or would be required to be deposited under those Orders if it had been originally introduced as amended in Committee. 143. A COPY OF EVERY RAILWAY BILL, TRAM-ROAD BILL, AND TRAMWAY BILL, IF AMENDED IN COMMITTEE, SHALL, AS SO AMENDED, BE DEPOSITED AT THE OFFCE OF THE BOARD OF TRADE three days before the Bill is read a third time, and proof of compliance with this Order shall be given by depositing a certificate from that Board in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments.
143. A COPY OF EVERY RAILWAY BILL, TRAMROAD BILL, AND TRAMWAY BILL, IF AMENDED IN COMMITTEE, SHALL, AS SO AMENDED, BE DEPOSITED AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRADE THREE DAYS BEFORE THE BILL IS READ A THIRD TIME, AND PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER SHALL BE GIVEN BY DEPOSITING A CERTIFICATE FROM THAT BOARD IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS.
103a. A COPY OF EVERY LOCAL BILL, IF AMENDED IN COMMITTEE, SHALL, AS SO AMENDED, BE DEPOSITED AT THE OFFICE OF HIS MAJESTY'S TREASURY AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, AND AT THE GENERAL POST OFFICE THREE DAYS BEFORE THE BILL IS READ A THIRD TIME.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Standing Orders amended accordingly, and to be printed as amended. (No. 194.)

PETITIONS.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition for amendment of; of Ross and Cromarty Land and Property Defence Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition against; of persons signing (3); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Supplementary Regulation for Secondary Schools in England, 1907.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 24. (1907).
  Supplementary Agreement between they United Kingdom and Sweden for the mutual surrender of fugitive criminals signed at London, 2nd July, 1907.

  ARMY.
  1. Memorandum on the Militia and Yeomanry.
  2. Report of the Advisory Board, London School of Economics, on the first course at the London School of Economics, January to July 1907, for the training of officers for the higher appointments on the Administrative Stair of the Army, and for the charge of departmental services.
  Presented [by Command]; and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to; several others agreed to, with Amendments, and with consequential amendments to the Bill; several others disagreed to, but Amendments made in lieu thereof; and several others disagreed to with reasons for such disageement: The said Amendments and reasons to be printed. and to be considered on Friday next, (No. 193.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Moved, "That Standing Order No. XXI. be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting; and that the Order for the Second Reading, of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the day."—(The Marquess of Ripon).
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION BILL.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Marquess of Ripon).
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I hope noble Lords opposite will not think that I obstructed the course of public business by suggesting that this Bill, which only arrived late last night, should not be put through all its stages between 10 and 11 p.m. The appearance of this Bill on the Paper affords, I conceive, a legitimate opportunity of calling attention to a matter of some importance and one which certainly concerns your Lordship's House. I will state it in the fewest and most direct words, as I do not want to stand between your Lordships and the interesting business on the Paper.
    The Education Estimates of this year include an item of £100,000 for new elementary schools. No particulars, so far as I am aware, are given of the schools or the localities in which this sum is to be spent, but we understand that it is to be devoted to the provision of new schools in single school areas, where the one existing school is denominational. I am not going to discuss the case of single school areas. We on this side of the House have always admitted the grievance of schools of that description, and have shown in our debates that we were ready to bear a part in remedying that grievance. But what I wish to call attention to is this. As I understand the matter, this Vote of—100,000 is a distinct contravention of Section 96 of the Education Act, 1870. That section runs as follows—
    "No Parliamentary Grant shall be made in aid of budding, enlarging, improving or fitting up any elementary school except in pursuance of a memorial &#x2026; sent to the Education Department on or before December 31, 1870."
    Therefore, my Lords, I take it there can be no question that,prima facie, this Vote is an irregularity and a contravention of the Statute of 1870. His Majesty's Government have, however, intimated that in their opinion the irregularity is sufficiently covered by the Appropriation Bill which now lies upon the Table of the House.
    720
    The question I want to ask is whether that is the view His Majesty's Government accept, and, if so, how far, in their opinion, this practice can safely be extended. I should like to suggest to the Lord President of the Council some of the possibilities which the establishment of this precedent opens out to us. We live in an age when so-called social legislation is much in vogue. Acts of Parliament dealing with these social problems invariably involve expenditure, and generally a very large expenditure, of public funds, and it is the practice of Parliament to accept the principle of this expenditure subject to the restrictions and conditions laid down in the Act which authorises it. That is the bargain which Parliament makes with the country, and it is on the faith of these restrictions and conditions that the two Houses accept measures of the kind which I have described. What I want to suggest to the noble Lord opposite is that all this becomes little better than a farce if the same Parliament or another Parliament is able subsequently by means of votes of money to accomplish the purpose at which the original Act was aimed, but without any of the restrictions, reservations, and conditions which that Act contained.
    I dwell upon the importance of this question to your Lordships because we are continually being reminded that we must not do anything which runs counter to the privilege of the House of Commons. So far as I am aware, noble Lords who usually act with me are ready loyally to observe the doctrine of privilege, although we know that its interpretation varies a good deal at different times. We fully admit that it is not in the power of this House to alter Money Bills, and that the only thing we can do is to throw them out. But I wish to dwell upon this, that the bargain has two sides to it, and the complement of the rule which forbids us from invading the privilege of the House of Commons is that the House of Commons shall not take advantage of procedure of the kind I am criticising this evening by tacking on to Supply Bills controversial provisions, and thus obtaining for those controversial provisions an immunity to which they would not otherwise be entitled.
    The matter is clearly stated in Sir Erskine May's book on Parliamentary

    721
    Procedure. May I read this extract to your Lordships—
    "In former times the Commons abused their right to grant supplies without interference from the Lords, by tacking to Supply Bills provisions which, in a Bill that the Lords had no right to amend, must either have been accepted by them unconsidered, or have caused the rejection of a measure necessary for the public service. This is an invasion of the privileges of the Lords, no less than their interference in matters of Supply infringes the privileges of the Commons."
    Then he quotes the Standing Order of your Lordships' House with which I have no doubt noble Lords opposite are familiar—
    "That the annexing any clause or clauses to a Bill of aid or Supply, the matter of which is foreign to, and different from, the matter of the said Bill of aid or Supply, is unparliamentary and tends to the destruction of the constitution of Government."
    Perhaps I shall be told that there is nothing in this grant of £100,000 which can properly be described as foreign to an Appropriation Bill. If that doctrine is accepted you may find yourselves in this position. You may have two Acts of Parliament in force at the same time, one forbidding in express terms expenditure for a particular purpose, and the other authorising such expenditure. The matter seems to me a very serious one, because the practice which His Majesty's Government are apparently about to adopt does have the effect of withdrawing from the cognisance of your Lordships matters in which you are interested and as to which you have a perfect right to express your opinion. The matter see us to me indeed so serious that I should have been at any other moment inclined to suggest to the House that it should be inquired into by a Committee, but at this period of the session I do not think that much good would result from such a suggestion. I do, however, wish to raise a note of warning and to intimate to noble Lords opposite that the matter is not one which has escaped our attention and that we shall very likely have to recur to it on some future occasion.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I think it is desirable, in the first place, to appreciate what has been done. What has been done is this. There is a clause in the Act referred to providing that no grant shall be made for a particular purpose. That
    722
    is a statute for general application and upon which I will say a word in a moment. The House of Commons has in the Appropriation Bill passed a sum of £100,000 for the purpose which is prohibited by the earlier Act. Now the House of Commons has in that respect not repealed the earlier Act, but simply made an exception for this year. For this there is a precedent, which I referred to on the last occasion that the matter was before your Lordships. I do not say that it is a precedent altogether in pari materia, but it is in point. The Act prescribed the payments to be made to certain Irish officials, and the House of Commons in six consecutive years altered those salaries in Appropriation Bills. It was done under a Conservative Government and I believe also under a Liberal Government. Upon the question whether this is a constitutional practice I can only say that authorities differ. I think it is a very bad practice; indeed I should be disposed to say an unconstitutional practice, to put into an Act of Parliament a provision restricting the power of Parliament or the House of Commons hereafter to say what money should be granted or not granted in the course of the year in years to come. No Parliament has a right to impose any condition upon future Parliaments, and in doing what it has done it seems to me that the House of Commons has released itself temporarily from the fetter imposed by the Act of 1870. But it is better to be quite frank in the matter. There is no doubt that in taking this action the House of Commons is using the power of the purse, which it has always regarded as its chief weapon and of which it has supreme control, for the purpose of protecting itself against the intolerable position in which it was placed by the rejection of the Education Bill last December.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, it is not my intention to say anything with regard to the creation of this remarkable precedent, because that has been fully dealt with by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition; but I would point out that I have never received any reply to the question which I put to the Government some time ago as to why this sum of £100,000 was not obtained in the usual and regular way by bringing in a Bill. I should be glad if I could receive some reply to that question

    723
    now. I rather gathered that the President of the Board of Education seemed to think that if such a Bill were introduced in the House of Commons it would not pass your Lordships' House. I cannot think that that can be accepted as a proper explanation of the adoption of this extraordinary course. There have been cases in the past where money has been required for various purposes in the relief of schools, but that money has always been obtained in the regular way by means of a Bill. I hope this precedent will not be followed in the future, and I should like some authoritative reply to my question.
    THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL(The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I conceive that the answer to the noble Marquess's question is a very simple one. He is perfectly correct in saying that the reason my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education did not introduce a Bill on this subject was that he was quite certain such a Bill would not pass your Lordships' House.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDON DERRY: As the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition specially stated, there is no ground for such an assumption. We on this side of the House agree that in districts where there is but one school, and that a denominational school, there is a hardship, and that being the case I do not see that the Government need have had the slightest fear in the matter. I cannot accept that as a valid excuse for the taking of this extraordinary action.
    On Question, Bill read 2a: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX, having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  "LIVE RAIL" ACCIDENTS.
  VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I rise to move for a Return of the total number of persons injured by what is called the "live rail" on railways in the years 1904, 1905, 1906, and the first eight months of 1907; defining in the Return the number of fatal accidents, and on what railway companies they took place. In the neighbourhood of Newcastle eight deaths and twenty serious accidents were caused by the "live rail" in 1904, but I believe the number was less in 1905. I have in my hand newspaper accounts of other accidents which have happened since 30th June in this year,
  724
  and they record the fact that two deaths and one serious accident have occurred in this way. I think after these accounts for the last six weeks it is time attention was drawn to this danger, and I shall bring the matter forward early next session in the hope that proper safeguards may be introduced, and it is with that object that I beg to move for the Return standing in my name.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the, House a Return of the total number of persons injured by what is called the "live rail" on railways in the years 1904, 1905, 1906, and the first eight months of 1907; defining in the Return the number of fatal accidents, and on what railway companies they took place."—(Viscount Galway.)
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the Board of Trade will be very pleased to furnish the Return asked for by the noble Lord, and if he will consent to wait another fortnight the Return can be presented up to the end of August.
  VISCOUNT GALWAY: I will gladly wait in order to have the Return complete.
  On Question, Motion agree I to, and ordered accordingly.

  EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.

    SECOND HEADING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this measure is one which I am glad to say is not of a controversial character, although it contains some very important, provisions. Some of those provisions are old friends of your Lordships, because they appeared in the Education Bill which I had the honour to introduce last year. As any of your Lordships who have looked into the Bill will have observed, there is no general principle involved in it. It is really an omnibus measure, and in another place my right hon. friend expressed his desire to withdraw from it any propositions which were seriously opposed by responsible members of the Opposition, and that it should go through, as far as possible, as an agreed measure.
    I will call attention to a few of the provisions. Clause 1 enables local authorities

    725
    to appropriate land for educational purposes on a wider scale than has hitherto been the case; that is to say, land and buildings for secondary and elementary schools become interchangeable under this proposition. But it is important to observe that this re-allocation of land has to receive the consent of the Local Government Board before it can be made, and that, I think, meets an objection which might possibly be raised against this particular clause, namely, that by allocating to educational purposes lands acquired for other purposes county councils might be able to exceed to a very considerable extent the present 2d. limit of the rate, but as the consent of the Local Government Board is required I think your Lordships will be disposed to agree that no real danger exists in that regard.
    Then Clause 3 gives an extension up to a term not exceeding 60 years, during which money borrowed by county councils is to be repaid, and on that I need merely say that this provision places county councils in exactly the same position as, and no better than, borough councils and urban district councils for this purpose. Clause 5 deals with the question of capital expenditure. The precise question as to what constitutes capital expenditure in school provision is sometimes an obscure and complicated one. The only point I wish your Lordships to notice in regard to this is that it is only so far as audit and the consequent possibility of surcharge are concerned that any change is made. So far as any question of application to the Courts of Law is concerned, matters remain as they were. Then I pass to Clause 9, which places schools for blind and deaf children in a better position than before. Clause 11 allows local education authorities to aid the instruction of children from twelve up to the limit of school age by scholarships and bursaries. That is an important provision for enabling the promising children of the very poor, who might find a difficulty in continuing at school, to finish their school course, and, as one hopes, ultimately climb still higher the educational ladder. Clause 12, dealing with higher education, enables students who have received scholarships still to receive them even when they have ceased, as sometimes happens, particularly in the case of great towns like London, to reside
    726
    in the actual area. That is a provision which, in our opinion, will be of great service in removing individual cases of hardship.
    Then I come to Clause 13, which, as your Lordships will remember, was in the Education Bill of last year. The first subsection gives power to provide vacation schools, play centres, and other means of recreation during the holidays. That proposal when it was made in last year's Bill received, I think, the unanimous approval of your Lordships' House, and therefore I do not propose to spend any further time in discussing it. But Subsection (b) deals with the still larger and more important question of medical inspection. The noble Marquess opposite, Lord Londonderry, and I had what I am sure was a great pleasure to him as it was to me, the opportunity of standing together on the platform of the School Hygiene Congress which was held the other day. That congress was one testimony amongst others of the importance that is attached by thoughtful people in this country as well as in other countries to this question of school hygiene, of which these points relating to medical inspection and care form, I think it is safe to say, by far the more important part.
    We are glad to know that in another place this provision received a large measure of support. So experienced a Member of the other House and one so respected as Sir Francis Powell spoke in very warm terms of the proposition contained in this clause; and, as I daresay many of your Lordships know, the Board of Education is now actively engaged in forming a medical department for the purpose of supervising this medical inspection. It is provided, as your Lordships will see, that children should be inspected at the time of their admission to a public elementary school, and afterwards periodically as the Board of Education direct; and the further words in the clause provide for arrangements for attending to the health and physical condition of the children educated in public elementary schools. Provision is made for medical care of the minor ailments to which children are subject, and the manner in which it is thought by many that this can be best carried out is by visits of nurses employed by the local authority to the homes of the children, where they are able to deal with small ailments very often caused quite as

    727
    much by the ignorance of the parents as by anything which could properly be called neglect or want of care.
    On this question of medical inspection—and it is, I think, the only one on which any points of difference have arisen—I should like to say one further word. In another place an Amendment was moved desiring that the parents who are able to do so should be made to pay for this medical attention on the lines of the Provision of Meals Act of last year. From the point of view of the child there is something of painful irony in the introduction of the term "provision of meals" when the medical attendance is likely as often as not to take the form of a dose of tincture of senna or castor oil. But putting that aside, my right hon. friend considered most carefully how far it was possible to meet this proposal, and he found, after giving it his best consideration, that it did not seem practical to apply the provisions of that Act to this Bill, and very largely for this reason—that if you insist upon parents paying their share for this medical attention the practical result is almost sure to be that it will have to take place at the school and the school only. If parents are charged for the visits of nurses or of doctors to the homes of the children, the result will be that they will refuse to admit those persons, and, as it is considered that the most sensible, practical, and economical way of dealing with these minor ailments is by domestic visits, a great part of the objects of the Bill would, I am afraid, be sacrificed if this change were made. The change is obviously not likely to be at all a serious one, and I hope under these circumstances your Lordships will not desire to see the Bill altered in that particular way.
    I now come to the question how the expenses under this Clause will be met. It is not considered possible, and I think for very obvious reasons, to make specific grants to local authorities, but my right hon. friend has already announced in another place that a very considerable addition will be made to the grants to local authorities in connection with elementary schools in the next Estimates. That fact is to be taken into consideration in dealing with the possible, or, indeed, probable extra cost which may be placed upon local authorities by this new provi-
    728
    sion. Then there is the further point, as to the time when this section should come into operation. It would, of course, naturally have come into operation as soon as the Bill was passed; but, in deference to a suggestion made in another place, I think by Sir William Anson, it was provided that this section should come into operation on the 1st day of January next year. That may seem to some members of your Lordships' House, too short a time to get an organisation of this kind into full swing, and it undoubtedly is. I think it is quite clear that the Local Education Authority, considering it may be some time before it is able to deal with the matter at all, would not be able to get this system into anything like working order by the 1st of January. But if noble Lords will look at the clause they will see that all that the clause insists on is that the duty to provide should begin from that date. Noble Lords who represent local authorities may, I think, take it quite clearly that the Board of Education will not press them to have their systems of medical inspection in full working order by January 1st. The principal difficulties which each local authority may experience in getting this system into order will be taken into full and fair consideration, so long as by that time they are seriously considering the question and preparing to deal with it in a practical way.
    There are only two other matters which I need mention. The first is Clause 14, of which I think the author was the noble Earl opposite, Lord Belper, with regard to the conveyance of children to school, and which provides that where suitable means of conveyance to school are provided, the excuse for non-attendance under Section 74 of the Act of 1870 shall not be held to be a good one. That is a very sensible and useful provision. The other point is as to the register. I am not going to trouble your Lordships this evening with any disquisition on that somewhat vexed and complicated subject. There was a general impression on the part of those who looked into the matter that to a great extent the teachers' register as it existed had somewhat broken down and failed to effect the purpose for which it was originally formed. There was a proposition at one time that it should be dropped altogether, but that caused a certain

    729
    amount of distress among those interested in the subject, and therefore this clause represents a compromise on that subject—namely, that a simple register, of a different character from that which has been the rule hitherto, should be instituted, and I think it will have a value of its own. Although it does not, I am afraid, satisfy all the persons who were placed on the original register, yet at the same time it will provide a means for teachers who have gone to the trouble and expense of obtaining the superior certificates and the higher form of education making that fact known to those who desire to engage them. I think I need detain the House no longer. I hope this measure will receive the support of noble Lords opposite who are qualified from their own experience to express an opinion upon its provisions.
    Moved: "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
    THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl, in the exceedingly interesting speech which he has just made, referred to the pleasure with which he had recently found himself on the same platform elsewhere with the noble Marquess who occupied, under the late Administration, a similar position to that now held by the noble Earl. I should like to say, in the same spirit, how glad I am at finding myself in the position to-night of warmly supporting an Education Bill introduced by my noble friend the Lord President.
    I desire to support this Bill cordially. I do not mean to say that there are not points in it upon which, had an opportunity been earlier given to us, I should have offered some criticism, but I feel that any criticism at the present moment might endanger the measure, which I desire to see passed into law. I was one of those who last year, when the negotiations for the Education Bill fell to the ground, experienced a keen feeling of disappointment, partly because of the loss of the very provisions which are contained in the Bill now presented to your Lordships. It was our own plan and endeavour to prepare a new Bill which should have embodied some of those provisions even at the last moment when the Education Bill of last year was perishing or had perished. It is, however, much
    730
    easier for the Government than for anybody else to do this, and I am glad to be able to say how cordially I support the provisions contained in this Bill and especially Clause 13, to which the noble Earl referred.
    The provisions dealing with medical inspection, play centres, and recreation schools we are anxious to see carried into vigorous effect; and I am certain that the regulations which the noble Earl has foreshadowed as regards the manner in which medical treatment or inspection will be carried out are such as are likely to produce most beneficent results, not only in the schools but in the homes from which the children come. The proposals contained in the Bill must involve some considerable expense and I imagine that some county councils may look a little askance on them; but I am one of those who believe that no expense is likely in the long run to justify itself more satisfactorily than expenditure in the direction this Bill sets forward. I congratulate the noble Earl upon what I hope is now the assured prospect of the passing of this Bill.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, after the speech of the most rev. Primate it is hardly necessary that I should address your Lordships, because what the most rev. Primate has said expresses so well the views which I and my friends on this Bench hold with regard to the Bill. It was with sincere regret that we saw those clauses in the Education Bill of last year which dealt with the medical inspection of children, the provision of improved playground accommodation and recreation schools, sacrificed on account of the failure of the whole Bill to pass. I remember taking part in many of the discussions in Committee, and the clauses which are included in this Bill were by universal consent regarded as of an admirable character. This Bill, therefore, comes to your Lordships in what I may call an uncontentious character. The President of the Board of Education went out of his way, when this measure was in the House of Commons, to say he trusted it would be met in an uncontentious spirit, and I am prepared to say that we are quite willing to meet it in that spirit.
    The noble Earl has clearly pointed out the great advantages that will accrue to the children if this Bill becomes law. I

    731
    most cordially approve of the clause which gives power to the local authorities to provide vacation schools and play centres. The noble Earl alluded to the fact that he and I were privileged to take part in the congress of the National Society for the Promotion of Hygiene, held in London a short time ago, and I may say that I listened with interest to the words that fell from the noble Earl on that occasion with regard to the question of medical inspection. I most cordially concur in all he said then and to-day, but, at the same time, I am bound to say that I think it would have been advisable to have considered a little more carefully the Amendment moved in another place as to whether the parent, when in a position to do so, ought not to contribute to the cost of medical attention. But as I do not think it desirable to raise any controversy I do not propose to press that question further.
    I am glad to hear that the grant to the local authorities will be increased in view of the additional duties to be imposed upon them. The sum was not mentioned, but I daresay that may come out at a later stage of our proceedings. Before I sit down I should like to express the pleasure with which I regard the proposals in the Bill to encourage those voluntary agencies, like the Happy Evenings Society, which have done so much for the health and happiness of the children. I am glad that encouragement is given to the ladies and others connected with these societies throughout the country; and I trust the Bill will speedily become law.
    LORD BELPER: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of raising any objection to the principles of this Bill, which contains some Amendments introduced into the Bill of last year on my motion. The noble Earl the Lord President has referred to the clause dealing with the subject of medical inspection, upon which the House will remember I had something to say in the discussions last year. I pointed out, not that the county councils objected in any way to medical inspection, which everybody recognises is of the greatest possible value if carried out efficiently, but that the expense would be very considerable in counties as compared to boroughs; and also that greater latitude should be given to county coun-
    732
    cils in regard to the time in which the scheme was to be carried out.
    As to the first point, I am glad to hear that, although a specific grant cannot be given, this additional expense will be considered by the giving of an increased grant for elementary education; and if any allocation is made with regard to this, I hope it will be remembered that in counties the expense will be much larger, owing to the scattered nature of the district, than in boroughs. Words have been introduced in this clause which somewhat meet the second point. I refer to the words "as soon as possible," but I am not sure that these words express all we would like. If this inspection is to be efficient you cannot entrust it to the local medical practitioners. You must appoint people with special knowledge of the subject, and therefore you must give sufficient time for all these arrangements to be carried out before the inspection comes into force. That is a point we hope will be considered.
    We are at the end of August now, and everybody connected with county councils is away on holiday. Therefore nothing can be done until October, leaving only one meeting of the county council before the 1st of January next, the date fixed for the Bill's coming into operation. If you are to build up an efficient system and to appoint competent men and women—I think women will be quite necessary in this work—it will take time. I consulted a very competent medical officer of health on the subject, and he said he thought that if his county council entrusted to him the work of drawing up the scheme, it would take him nearer a year than six months to do so; and I understand that the Board of Education have not yet got their medical board constituted, and regulations will, of course, have to be issued by them. If the Government do not wish to alter the date specified in the Act, I hope there will be some power given to the Board of Education to treat county councils who want to do the work efficiently with latitude in the matter. Otherwise you will have to start with makeshift schemes, which would be unsatisfactory and not likely to work. I do not wish to move any amendment to this clause, but I hope that point will be considered, and that it will not be neceesary for county councils to have appointed their inspectors by the

    733
    1st of January, because I believe that would be absolutely impossible. It would meet our view more if words were inserted to give the Board of Education power to extend the period if they considered it necessary.
    THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, perhaps I might say that I have had an opportunity of discussing this point with my right hon. friend, and he thinks—and I am bound to say I agree with him—that the Bill as it stands really does meet the difficulty raised by the noble Lord. There is nothing in the clause which says the inspection is to begin by the 1st of January. What the Bill says is that the duty to provide must begin. My right hon. friend appreciates the point raised, and the noble Lord can be quite satisfied that the Board of Education will not press county councils unduly in this matter.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, there is one point in connection with Clause 13 of the Bill on which I would ask your Lordships' indulgence while I say a word or two. It is the subject of the vacation schools. I venture to say a word on this matter because, as the most rev. Primate reminded the House, there may be some fear in the minds of local authorities as to the expense which this clause may throw upon the locality. Your Lordships know better than I do that there is nothing on which local authorities are so sensitive as on the question of additional expense, and therefore it may reassure them if I say that my own experience shows that vacation schools need not be very expensive. We owe these excellent institutions to the initiation of Mrs. Humphrey Ward, and recognition is due to her for what she has done in the matter. Having seen her experiment I ventured to try it myself in the city of Hereford two years in succession during the summer vacation, and I found it possible to work the vacation school at an expense of only about 1d. per child for each hour's attendance. If local authorities could be assured that the expense of such schools would not be very much more than this, I venture to think they might be encouraged to under take them. It is on that ground I have ventured to bring before your Lordships my own experience in the matter, and I will add that I am convinced there is no
    734
    part of our elementary education system which is more valuable to vast numbers of city children than a well-conducted vacation school.
    On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the chair.]
  Clause 1:
  LORD HENEAGEmoved to substitute for the word "persons" the words "officers of the board." He wished to earmark these Commissioners as officials of the Board of Agriculture and to express in the Bill what was understood to be the intention of the Government. He thought the selection of the name "Commissioner" was very unfortunate, as it appeared to carry with it the germ and the bacillus of the Irish land system. Some more convenient name might have been used. If it were the 21st of June instead of the 21st of August he would have been inclined to eliminate the word "Commissioner" and substitute "the Board of Agriculture"; but to propose that now was impossible, as it would practically mean the redrafting of most of the clauses and a great many consequential and drafting Amendments. It had been proposed in another place that the title "Inspectors" instead of "Commissioners" should be given to these officers, but it had been said that that would be derogatory to these very superior persons. He was bound to say he did not think that a very good answer. The eminent inspectors of the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, and the Home Office were quite as important persons as the Commissioners under this Bill were likely to be. Then, again, the Commissioners were really to be the leading actors under the Bill. The county councils and the Board of Agriculture were treated as secondary persons throughout. He would have thought that the county councils would have been put in the front rank, with the Board of Agriculture as the Court of Appeal; and that the officers of the Board of Agriculture would have

  735
  been treated as subordinate to the Board and not put in the forefront of the Bill. Again, he was unable to see why the term "persons" should be used in reference to the Commissioners and "officers" in regard to the others to be appointed for the purposes of the Bill. Under the terms of the Bill the Commissioners were to be the persons to act; it was true they were to act under the direction of the Board of Agriculture, but they would only receive general directions, and would practically act in each case on their own initiative. What was the real reason for this rather confused drafting of Clauses 1 and 2? He thought it was to be found in the genesis of the Bill as described by the Prime Minister. The cry was "Back to the land," but the provisions in this Bill were absolutely impossible and hostile to the sitting tenants and the labourers. What were the real reasons for the depopulation of the rural districts? The first reason was that within the last fifty years the use of machinery had entered very largely into agriculture, and there had been less requirement for labour; the second was that bad times and small profits had forced farmers to be their own foremen and shepherds, and their sons to take over small farms, the consequence being that there had been less work for farm labourers; the third reason was that over a great number of years during the last century half a million acres of land had been alienated from agricultural purposes; and the final reason was that the wives and daughters of the labourers preferred town life. He wanted to know what there was in this Bill which was likely to affect any of these causes. He feared there was nothing. He hoped the Government would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 10, to leave out the word 'persons' and to insert the words 'officers of the Board.'"—(Lord Heneage.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREagreed that it was undesirable that the Commissioners should be independent of the Board of Agriculture and able to roam up and down the country on their own responsibility. That would undoubtedly be setting up a limited bureaucracy. Therefore with the spirit of the noble Lord's Amendment he was in complete sympathy; but he
  736
  thought that if it were accepted it would go a great deal further than its mover wished. The Amendment was to substitute the words "Officers of the Board" for "persons," and the clause would then read—
  "Shall appoint two or more officers of the Board possessed of knowledge ….";
  in other words, the Amendment would limit the choice of the Board of Agriculture to the present officers of the Board. He quite admitted that included among the present officers of the Board of Agriculture were many who would be well qualified to carry out the duties under this Bill, but he did not suppose for a moment that the noble Lord wished to limit the choice in this way. As to the other point, if the noble Lord would look further down in the clause he would see the words "and such other officers." It was quite obvious, therefore, that the Commissioners were to be officers of the Board.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I confine myself strictly to the Amendment. Whether or not this Bill has the germs of the Irish land legislation in it I will not venture to discuss, but I can assure my noble friend Lord Heneage that he is quite wrong in supposing that the Board of Agriculture will take second place. I am President of that Board, and so long as I am permitted to fill that office I shall not take a second or a third place, but shall always be found in the front. This Amendment was very fully discussed in the Commons House of Parliament and was negatived by 3 to 1. What is the proposal? It seems to me that the noble Lord wishes to d&#x00E9;nigrer, as the French would say, the position of these gentlemen. In the interest of the success of the scheme it is essential that the very best men should be selected to start it upon its career, and as the Amendment is an attempt to lower their official status we cannot accept it. At the same time the Commissioners will, of course, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Burghclere, be officers of the Board.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped the noble Earl would not meet every Amendment from the Opposition side with the

  737
  statement that it had been discussed and negatived in another place. He thought their Lordships were entitled to have some independent opinion on this measure. With regard to the particular Amendment now before the Committee, it might of course be a question merely of name, but it might be one of substance. If it were a question merely of name he did not think it mattered in the least, except, perhaps, that there might be a point of amour propre, the gentlemen concerned preferring the term "Commissioners" to "officers." The question was, Was there any point of importance in the Bill in connection with which the Commissioners were not under the direction of the Board of Agriculture? He had very carefully considered the matter, and, so far as he could judge, there was no such point. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would not be pressed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  VISCOUNT HILLmoved to omit from the provision that the Commissioners should ascertain "the extent to which there is a demand, either actual or prospective, for small holdings," the words "either actual or prospective." The existing demand for small holdings was a fact, and therefore the demand for them should be easily ascertained. But the word "prospective" was an entirely different matter. The demand for small holdings would rest upon many different conditions, and he might mention two important ones, namely, the season, and the prices of agricultural produce. Two consecutive bad seasons, for example, would necessarily mean less demand for small holdings. Therefore they would have to consider the prospective conditions which would be favourable to agricultural small holdings. It appeared to him that His Majesty's Government were rather wanting to make allowances for a demand that did not exist, because if the demand existed there was no further inquiry wanted. If those words remained in the Bill it appeared to him that the Commissioners would have rather too much scope and freedom of action, because there would be nothing to prevent them roaming all over the country
  738
  ad libitum, agitating for small holdings, which naturally would, to a certain extent, disturb tenant farmers and cause unrest among farmers and various other people in the community, and, he was afraid, create the possibility of a dangerous land speculation. If, as they were told by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, there was such a great demand for small holdings, the words as they stood in the Bill were in his opinion needless and most dangerous, and he trusted that the noble Lord would see his way to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, lines 24 and 25, to leave out the words 'either actual or prospective.'"—(Viscount Hill.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I feel sure that the House will believe that these Commissioners are not to be appointed for the purpose of making allowances for demands that do not exist, or in order to roam over the country disturbing farmers and giving unnecessary trouble to landlords or anything of that sort. The reason the words "actual or prospective" are put in the Bill is because we want the Commissioners not to take too narrow a view of their duties, and to recognise that all the requirements in the county are to be considered. We have no wish to send down a lot of "spoil sports" or disturbers into the country to make mischief—far from it. I honestly feel that the Board of Agriculture might be trusted to act as sane and reasonable men, and that it ought not to be supposed that they will always be rushing into undertakings which to any extent go beyond the necessities of the case. The House has a guarantee that none of these "wild-cat" schemes will be initiated in the fact that the Board of Agriculture is to pay half the cost that may be incurred. I think that is a guarantee that the Commissioners will act as reasonable, practical and sensible men, and that there will not be any of those excursions and alarums in the country which the noble Lord oppisite seems to fear.
  LORD BELPERsaid that this was one of the Amendments approved of by the County Councils Association which were brought to the notice of Mr. Harcourt and considered by him. But he

  739
  was bound to say that he had heard neither that night nor from Mr. Harcourt any argument which seemed to him to meet the case. What was a "prospective" demand? Could anybody in the world say what a "prospective" demand for small holdings was? He had been racking his brains to find out what demand could be said to be "prospective"; and whether there were any circumstances at all in human life where there was a certainty that there would be a demand in the, future. The only thing he could think of was that when one came down in the morning, one had undoubtedly a "demand" for one's breakfast, and there was a "prospective demand" for luncheon and for dinner afterwards; and no doubt the person took that into consideration and made his arrangements accordingly. But the requirements of possible tenants for small holdings would not work with the mathematical regularity of the human frame, where there was a vacuum at a certain time of the day as surely as the hour came round. If they were going to talk about a "prospective demand," it could only mean that the person inquiring had an idea in his mind that there might be a demand at some future time; it could not be anything more, because a demand which was not in existence was not a demand. Therefore, it could only be that the people who were considering the matter thought there would possibly be a demand at some future time. The noble Earl had said that he did not want the Commissioners to take too narrow a view of the question. Why should they take too narrow a view? If the words "actual or prospective" were left out the word "demand" would be left without any limitation; and he thought that would be quite sufficient. Of course if a man came to the Commissioners, and said "I cannot take a small holding in the next six months; but as soon as I have settled a certain piece of business I shall be in a position to take it, and you may certainly put me down as one who will take a small holding towards the end of the year," that might certainly be considered by any reasonable human being to be a "demand"; and he did not see that putting in the word "prospective" really added anything to the force of it, unless there was some gentleman with not a very great discretion who considered that he might, out of his own imagination, make up his
  740
  mind that there were circumstances which would possibly lead to a demand twelve months or two years hence. He hoped that the Government would give way in regard to this Amendment, because it seemed to him that it was only turning the clause into good English. He had no wish in the world to fetter the Commissioners in saying whether there was a demand actually, either to-day or tomorrow; and the ordinary word "demand" would, he thought, cover the situation. He was quite certain that if the word "prospective" were left in, it would have the effect of leading someone or other to think that it might be considered that there was a demand merely from the idea that at some future date a demand might arise; and it seemed to him that it would be extremely dangerous for county councils to have to satisfy such a demand. If land was to be purchased on a "prospective demand," what would become of the security for no loss? It was extremely likely that there would be a loss. It might be thought at a certain moment that there was going to be a demand twelve months hence; but, supposing the circumstances changed, and that there was not such a demand? If land was purchased on such an idea, it might have to be got rid of. He was aware that under the Bill it could be got rid of at a certain time if circumstances changed; but, at the same time, it was certainly not desirable to have land purchased on a speculative basis, which was what he thought was likely to take place if the word "prospective" was left in.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl in charge of the Bill let fall an observation just now which seems to me to entirely justify my noble friend in moving his Amendment. The noble Earl told us that we were not to regard the proceedings of these Commissioners with too much apprehension. He said, "Do not suppose that it will be the business of these gentlemen to consider a demand which does not exist." My Lords, a "demand which does not exist" is a "prospective demand"; and therefore I appeal to the noble Earl to agree to this very reasonable suggestion.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDpointed out that assuming the Commissioners went

  741
  down into a county and found that there was a demand for small holdings, that was well and good. But supposing they found there was a "prospective demand" for small holdings in that particular district, what would be the effect of their report? Was the land to be scheduled as adaptable at some future time for small holdings, and would the owner in consequence be unable to deal with it? Otherwise, unless there was some drastic measure of that sort contemplated in delineating a "prospective demand" for small holdings, he failed to see the use of the word at all.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE)thought the observations which had fallen from the noble Duke, following those which came from his noble friend the Marquess of Lansdowne, rather showed that the discussion was being carried on, on the part of noble Lords opposite, under, for the moment, a rather mistaken apprehension as to the exact stage of the Bill which had been arrived at. If they had been discussing the later clauses where they would arrive at the stage of "Schemes and Orders," he thought the observations which had just fallen from the noble Duke would have been perfectly to the point.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDasked what part of the Bill the noble Lord was alluding to?
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that he was referring to Clauses 3 and 4. When they arrived at those clauses, they would be dealing with schemes, and with Orders for carrying out schemes. The clause which they were now on related simply to the preliminary inquiry and report, arid had been framed with the object of giving as large a latitude as possible to those preliminary inquiries. He could understand that a certain amount of quite legitimate criticism and good humoured cavilling might be indulged in about the word "prospective." They might be asked what was actually meant by a "prospective demand." He would suggest that a "prospective demand" meant a probable demand, and that the Commissioners in going round would inquire into the general circumstances of the district. They would not be inquiring, or pro-
  742
  ceeding at that stage to make an order in regard to any particular parcel of land, but they would be taking the whole circumstances of the case into consideration. No doubt their Lordships might go on almost for ever refining upon the sort of facts which might or might not occur to the Commissioners as justifying or not justifying a report stating that there was a "prospective demand," just in the same way as the theologians of the 17th Century used to burn one another about distinctions relating to "actual" and "prevenient" grace; but he did not think that kind of very subtle discussion, which interested persons with what might be called a metaphysical mind, were really worthy, at the present stage, of taking up any very great amount of time. He was not for a moment saying that the criticisms and questions were not perfectly legitimate; but, looking at the question from a common-sense point of view, and bearing in mind—because that was what he particularly wanted to urge upon the Committee—that they were now on the stage of an inquiry and report by the Commissioners he thought the word could not possibly do any harm.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that the speech they had just heard had alarmed him immensely; and he could not help asking what had become of the "Farmers' Charter"? Last year they passed an Act of Parliament limiting landed proprietors' discretion for dealing with their tenants, because there were supposed to be in the country some landed proprietors who so interfered with their tenants that their security was a very bad one. Now they were to erect the President of the Board of Agriculture into a landlord who was to have the power of turning out any tenant in any part of the country. That was the effect of the Bill. And they were told, by way of cheering the farmers, that the Commissioners were to go down to report, not only on actual demands for small holdings but—he thought he was quoting the actual words of the noble Lord (Lord Fitzmaurice)—the probable demands for small holdings. They were to tell certain districts that there was every probability that they would be disturbed, if not immediately, in the very near future. The noble Lord had especially pointed out that because they had not yet got to the later stages

  743
  of the Bill they were not to do that which would be, to a certain extent, fair, namely, to indicate which farmers were to be disturbed and what position the individuals would be in, but they were to have the power of unsettling the minds of a whole lot of tenants in a district as to a probable demand in the future. He thought that was not a thing which their Lordships ought to sanction. It was bad enough, in his opinion, to erect the President of the Board of Agriculture in the place of the landlord with power to turn out tenants. He said nothing about the present holder of that office, who, as their Lordships knew perfectly well, was an excellent landlord, and one who had the utmost sympathy for the farmers; but he asked their Lordships to consider one thing at the very commencement of the debate. Let them not be led away by the assurance of the noble Lord that it was not intended to do this, that, and the other—that he had no idea of doing so and so. He gave the noble Lord every credit for the "best intentions," and would not say a word about the rest of the quotation, but the noble Lord was only the temporary holder of his office; and they could not tell who might succeed him. He would make him a present of the fact that his successor might be a Unionist, but at the same time he might not be a gentleman as well qualified as himself to judge what was the proper way of treating tenants. And with all respect to their Lordships, he would say that they were bound, in passing legislation of this kind, to see that powers were not given to the President of the Board of Agriculture—speaking of him as an abstraction and not as a noble Lord opposite—which it was possible for him to abuse in a way which they would all regret.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I should like to say something upon that. It is perfectly true that last year we passed an Act to prevent unreasonable disturbance, and I was asked—I am not certain whether or not by the noble Duke opposite—whether or not it would be consistent with "good estate management" to take a portion of a farm for small holdings, and whether, under those circumstances, it would be right or just that the tenant farmer should be able to get compensation for disturbance. It was agreed to on both sides of the House—I said it myself more than
  744
  once—that it would be consistent with good estate management to do that; and I believe that was the general consensus of opinion of the House of Lords. This is a different thing altogether. We are working, or we are trying to work, in a perfectly legitimate and straightforward way on the lines of good estate management. We do not want in any way to disturb or unsettle the minds of farmers, and if some very active gentleman should try and do such a thing, when we get a little further on in the Bill it will be seen that the interests of farmers and landlords are protected. After the great compliment the noble Duke was kind enough to pay me, he reminded me that after all I was only a temporary holder of the office. I suppose that is perfectly true, but I must remind him that probably when I am suceeded, I shall be suceeded by a Minister of the Crown, and people who are put into such positions are supposed to be upright and honourable men, and I have not the smallest idea that any successor of mine would ever act in any other way than I should myself, or in the exercise of his office do anything unfair to any person.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the observations of the noble Earl seemed to him to add strength to the arguments in favour of the Amendment. He quite agreed with the noble Earl that it was a general understanding in the House last year that it would be consistent with good estate management for a landlord to take away part of a large farm in order to establish small holdings; but then that was the very reason why, if such a very indefinite idea was given of what constituted a "demand" as was involved in the word "prospective," that might unsettle the tenants of a whole countryside without any benefit at all. He did not think that point need be dwelt upon at any length, and he hoped they might be allowed to go to a division, and that the Amendment would be carried.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HAVERSHAMin moving the insertion of the words "England and Wales" after the word "Counties," said that this was merely a verbal Amendment, the object of which was to make it clear on the very forefront of the Bill

  745
  that its operation was limited to England and Wales, and was not to include Scotland, instead of one having to hunt through the whole of the Bill and then finding in the very last clause that it was limited, and did not include Scotland. But there was another reason for moving the Amendment, namely, that the Act with which it was to he construed, the Small Holdings Act, 1892, was not limited to England and Wales, but included Scotland. And as the two Acts—if the present Bill became an Act—were to be construed and read together, he thought it important that that should be made clear in the forefront of the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 25, after 'Counties' to insert the words 'England and Wales.'"—(Lord Haversham.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I have carefully considered this matter, and have taken the best advice, and as it is simply a question of drafting I think I should ask as a favour that the noble Lord would not press his Amendment. It is supposed to be best to provide in the usual way that the Act shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland. As the noble Lord says, that is provided for in the 47th Clause, which is certainly very late in the Bill, and I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
  LORD HAVERSHAMsaid that if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill objected, and thought there was any reason against his Amendment, he certainly would not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved to amend that part of Clause 2 which provided that the Commissioners "may employ or co-operate with" authorities, associations and persons, by leaving out the the words "employ or." He said it was not a very large point, but it was one which was not altogether unimportant. As the clause stood, it provided that the Commissioners should confer with the County Councils and "may employ or co-operate with such other authorities, associations and persons as they think best qualified to assist them." Their Lordships would see that the words were large—"authorities,
  746
  associations, and persons." He did not suppose that any of their Lordships would object to the Commissioners co-operating with anybody they chose, and he could quite well understand that there were associations in the country which might be very usefully used in that way in co-operating with the Commissioners. But it seemed to him that "employ" carried with it payment, and if it was intended that the Commissioners should enter into pecuniary transactions with "authorities, associations and persons," he thought the power was a very dangerous one. It was quite evident that the Commissioners, with all the talents which the noble Lord assured them they would possess, could not know very much about the districts they went to—they would not know whom to trust, and whom not to trust; and they were extremely likely to get into hands which they had better not get into if any pecuniary advantage was in prospect from dealing with them. He hoped the noble Lord would not object to his proposition. It was not a serious Amendment. He could not help thinking that the noble Lord would himself see the disadvantage of putting it in the power of anyone to say that undue motives had been employed in order to induce the views of the Commissioners to take effect; and he thought that any danger of that sort would be most safely removed by leaving out the words "employ or."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 3, to leave out the words "employ or."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I agree with the noble Duke that this is not a very serious question. The noble Duke is quite right in saying that the word "employ" carries a money payment; but in this case it really is a very small thing. As the noble Duke said, it would be a great disadvantage to put it into the power of any man to go and offer a bribe and to say, "I will give you so much money if you will push the idea of small holdings." I need hardly say that we have not the smallest intention of doing such a thing as that. But it was felt that it might be necessary to employ certain persons. As the noble Duke said, a Commissioner might be sent down into a district; and, he being a

  747
  stranger in that district, it might be necessary for him to employ people, for instance, to obtain information as to valuation, or as to the number of small holders in a parish, or to obtain copies of the Poor Rates, or small things of that sort, which might very fairly and reasonably require a small money payment. I think I may perhaps re-assure the noble Duke if I remark that all payments must receive the sanction of the Treasury. Certainly, the Treasury are very hard taskmasters, and they would not sanction the employment of persons save for these very minor and accidental expenses. I am glad the noble Lord does not put much stress on this Amendment, and I hope that under the circumstances he will not feel disposed to press it, but will allow the words "employ or" to stand part of the clause.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNobserved that the noble Earl had said that the Board of Agriculture would be obliged to obtain the sanction of the Treasury for any employment, but he did not see that that was provided for in the Bill. Would the noble Earl have any objection to the insertion of the words "and may, with the sanction of the Treasury, employ"? He thought that those words would put a very different complexion upon the clause, and he should propose to insert those words after the present Amendment was disposed of.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDthought that perhaps it might meet the noble Lord's (Earl Carrington's) views if the words "authorities and associations" were left out, or at any rate the word "associations," which he considered the most dangerous. What he feared was that they might have some of the co-operative associations, which were very often excellent institutions, but which competed to a certain extent with one another, and he thought it would be a very bad thing and would get them into many difficulties if one association was employed by the Commissioners, and another was not. If the noble Lord would move some Amendment limiting the effect of the word "employ" to "persons," which was really what he imagined the noble Lord intended, that would meet his point to a great extent.
  LORD AMPTHILLsuggested that the words should read "and may co-operate with such other authorities and associations, or employ such persons as they may think best qualified to assist them." He thought that would meet the object in view, and it was merely a matter of transposing the word "employ."
  LORD FITZMAURICEagain called the attention of the Committee to the fact that at this stage of the Bill they were only dealing with the preliminary report and inquiry, and not with the actual issue of either the draft scheme or the final scheme, much less the Order, and that therefore although these words might seem extensive and even alarming at first sight, they were not capable of leading to the dangers indicated by the noble Duke—at least he thought not. It would be well if the noble Duke would bear in mind that the powers given by the sub-section simply related to the preliminary stage, when the Commissioners would be holding a general inquiry in certain districts, and were empowered by these words to co-operate with associations or other bodies which they thought might give them useful information, such for example as a co-operative society—although there were not many co-operative societies in agricultural districts—and if necessary they might employ such persons as they thought fit for carrying out these preliminary inquiries. In regard to what had fallen from the Earl of Camper down he believed he was right in saying that the financial clauses of the Bill made it perfectly clear that all the expenditure under the Act might be sanctioned by the Treasury, but no doubt if the point required further elucidation it could be very easily gone into and set right at a later stage.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): I think under the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, although temporarily occupying the Chair, I may, with the leave of the Committee, address the Committtee from my own place in the House, and I beg to ask the leave of the Committee to say a few words upon this Amendment. I very much hope that the Amendment will be passed, and the reason I say that is that I think there is grave danger in

  749
  giving authority to the Board of Agriculture to employ "persons" as well as cooperative and other associations in making these inquiries. Your Lordships have struck out the words "prospective demand," but I am not at all sure that when the Bill passes into law those or similar words may not be found to have been re-instated in it, and if so I think a very serious danger will arise, because what I foresee is that when these inquiries are made there will be some person who will say, "If you will only give me a small sum of money I will undertake to go down into such and such a village, and I think I shall be able to find that if there is not an `actual' there is at any rate a 'prospective' demand for small holdings." I have no objection whatever to the co-operation of the Board of Agriculture with any association or with any person who will give their or his services voluntarily, but I think there is a grave danger in giving authority for the Board to pay money to any person to go and get up an agitation in any particular part of the country in favour of small holdings.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNpointed out that under the provisions of the clause all the expenses incurred by the Commissioners and officers in the execution of their duties under the Act—such amount as might be sanctioned by the Treasury—might be defrayed. That clause would really Cover all the kind of payments that the noble Earl alluded to when he addressed the Committee, and to go beyond that, and to add what the Lord Chairman add just objected to would, it seemed to him, be liable to very grave danger, and would very likely result in the Commissioners obtaining very inaccurate information.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HAVERSHAMwho had an Amendment to insert "in England or Wales" after the word "parish" said that he did not wish to move it, as it was merely consequential upon the previous Amendment which he had withdrawn. He would, however, move the other Amendment which stood in his name—namely, at line 21 to substitute the word "council" for the word "councils" and to make certain other small verbal alterations. He thought there was some slight mistake in that draft of the Clause,
  750
  and the Amendment which he had put down would bring the clause exactly into the same terms as in line 6, so that it would run "the council of the county, borough, district or parish concerned." As the Bill stood, it read "councils of the county." He did not know what "councils of the county" could mean. There was but one county council, and he thought that the alterations he suggested would probably be agreed to. Then, again, why was the rural district left out? He thought the Amendment he had put down would make the matter right. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 21, to leave out the word 'councils' and to insert the word 'council,' and to leave out the words 'and of the,' and to leave out the word 'urban.'"—(Lord Haversham.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: Subsection 4, I think I can assure my noble friend, is correctly drafted. Information may have to be sent to more than one council, so that the plural in that case is correct. That is the answer to that.
  LORD HAVERSHAMsaid that in that case it ought to be the same in the former part.
  EARL CARRINGTON: No, only in Subsection 4. If "urban" were omitted, information would have to be sent to the rural district councils, but these councils no longer possess any allotment powers or duties. They are taken away under the Clause 20. That is the reason why the word "urban" is put in. I think the noble Lord will see that the clause is correctly drafted, and I hope that he will not press his Amendment.
  LORD HAVERSHAMasked whether the noble Lord meant that the word "councils" would include cases where there were two councils as in Suffolk—two joint councils.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Information might have to be sent to one or more councils, and therefore the word is put in the plural in this subsection only.
  LORD HAVERSHAMsaid in that case he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid there were a great number of geographical counties which were divided into one or more administrative counties, and he thought it would be useful to leave the clause in the way in which it now stood.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYmoved an amendment to insert at the end of the clause a new subsection providing for the Commissioners to confer with the county councils as to what, if any, provision was made in elementary and continuation schools in rural districts for instruction in rural industries. He said he might be told that this subsection was rather out side the duties of the Commissioners, but where a body of Commissioners had to confer with county councils and the authorities of the counties as to every matter in connection with the demand for small holdings or allotments, the first thing he would imagine that they ought to take into account was whether there had been any system of education in that county with the object of bringing up the youth of the district to take an interest in, and to fit themselves for, the cultivation of allotments. It was always said, and he had thought it was true, that this was not a country which compared well with other countries as to the number of small holdings. But he thought probably many of their Lordships would have read a very interesting paper by Colonel Craigie, late an officer of the Board of Agriculture, in which he showed conclusively that that was a great mistake, and that England was very largely composed of small holdings, and compared in that respect favourably with most countries on the Continent. The experience of those who had knowledge of small holdings was that most of them were tenanted by people who were carrying on a struggling existence, mainly from their ignorance of the elements and foundations of the science of agriculture. He thought any noble Lord who had an estate would say that that was his experience. The result of that had been that from the time of the passing of the Education Act, for twenty-five years in the rural schools no interest whatever was taken in agriculture, and in the teaching of agriculture or in what he would call rural
  752
  instruction. As he had said the other night, happily a new era had dawned at the Board of Education and now these subjects were taught. It surely was of the greatest importance that the Commissioners should be able to inquire of the county authority as to what steps were being taken to educate the youth of the county in these subjects, and he hoped noble Lords might see that it was not outside the duty of the Commissioners to accept the responsibility of making a report on this subject to the Board. In the case of the Scottish Bill, which was in a state of suspended animation, the duties which in that Bill were put upon the Commissioners were to be of a very much larger scope than those proposed to be given under the present Bill. In the Scottish Bill they were charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of agriculture and of rural industries, the preparation of statistics relating to those subjects, and other matters, and he thought that if the Government considered it necessary in Scotland to put these duties upon the Commissioners, he was not asking too much in asking that under this sub-section the same power should be given in regard to England.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 22, after 'concerned' to insert the following new sub-section: '(5) In the course of their inquiries under this section in the several counties the Commissioners shall take steps to ascertain whether any, and, if so, what provision is made in elementary and continuation schools in rural districts for instruction in rural industries, and for this purpose the Commissioners shall confer with the county councils and they shall report to the Board the information acquired by them respecting any county." (Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD BELPERsaid he was entirely in sympathy with the noble Marquess in his wish to give rural teaching in elementary schools, but he thought there were practical difficulties in endeavouring to do it in this way. In his own county they were already doing a good deal—
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I was on the point of interrupting the noble Lord who preceded him. I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Bill is a Bill for the provision of small holdings, so that I think

  753
  the question of education scarcely comes within its provision. No doubt a very interesting discussion might arise upon it, but I do not know what view other noble Lords may take. I think it is very doubtful whether the matter could advantageously be discussed now.
  LORD BELPERsaid he did not know whether the Amendment would be withdrawn for the reasons mentioned by the Lord Chairman. But at all events he wished to point out that the Commissioners would be brought into contact with committees of small holdings and those committees would know nothing about rural education.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I quite agree that this is somewhat outside the duties of the Commissioner. We should be very glad to do all we could to promote agricultural education, yet I quite agree with the Lord Chairman that this is going a little outside the four corners of the Bill. Allusion was made to the Scottish Bill. I hope I may be forgiven if during the debate to night I stick wholly and entirely to the English Bill which is before the House. I may point out that if Lord Huntly's wishes were carried out, the Commissioners and the school inspectors would, of course, overlap to a certain extent and that would cause confusion and perhaps even friction. Besides that, any information that was obtained by the Commissioners would fall upon the Board of Agriculture. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  LORD BARNARDmoved to omit the words "modifications or" from the prescribed procedure under which the Board would forward the report of the Commissioners to the county councils. He pointed out that the clause prescribed that the Board "shall forward the Commissioners' report to the county council." If they gave the Board power to introduce modifications into that report, no man could tell—the county council would not be able to tell—how far it was or was not the report of
  754
  the Commissioners. He thought it would he far better that the report should be forwarded intact as it came from the Commissioners. That would still leave the Board power under the clause, as it was drawn, to add to the report any observations they might think proper for the information of the county council.
  Amendment moved—
  In page 2, line 27, to leave out "modifications or."—(Lord Barnard.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: The Board, after all, is responsible for the report, and it would be impossible for them to be tied down to the exact words of the Commissioners. I may again take this opportunity of saying that I consider these Commissioners to be under the Board and that they are not in any way to dictate anything to the Board. They will send their reports to the Board, and when a report is sent to the county council that report must be a report that the Board of Agriculture can approve of. I must have a perfectly free hand to amend anything that I may not happen to agree with. I hope Lord Barnard will be satisfied with that, and will not press his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthought the objection of the noble Earl was a fair one. He did not wish to give the Commissioners any authority apart from the Board of Agriculture which would seem to give them aquasi independence.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved the omission of the words in the first subsection which required the county council, on receipt of the modified report, to prepare a scheme, in order to insert:—"and shall take into consideration any observation of the county council thereon and also any alternative proposals which may be made by the council, after which the Board shall forward to the council a statement of their final decision, and it shall he the duty of the council to give effect to such decision." He said that in order to explain his Amendment it was necessary to look at the procedure proposed under the clause. The clause provided that: "The Board after considering the report""shall forward the report of the Commissioners to

  755
  the county council, and it shall be the duty of the county council to prepare one or more draft schemes to give effect to the report" and so on. Under the clause as it stood, therefore, all that the Board had to do was to forward the report as finally approved, and the county council, as the clause stood, had no right whatever to make any observations or anything of that kind, but were obliged to prepare a draft scheme to carry out that report. He thought that was hardly courteous to the county councils, and he doubted whether it was his noble friend's intention. He therefore proposed to move the Amendment, the object of which was to enable the county council to make observations, and he hoped the noble Lord would think that that Amendment rather improved the procedure under the clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 28, to leave out from 'council' to the end of subsection (1), and insert "and shall take into consideration any observations of the county council thereon and also any alternative proposals which may be made by the council, after which the Board shall forward to the council a statement of their final decision, and it shall be the duty of the council to give effect to such decision."—(The Earl of Camperdown).
  EARL CARRINGTON: I understood the noble Earl to say that the county council cannot make observations.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As the clause stands.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I can assure the noble Lord that the last thing in the world we want to do is to show any want of courtesy whatever to the county councils. We are perfectly aware that if the Bill is to be the success which we hope it will be, we must have the co-operation of the county councils, and we hope and believe that they will meet us in a generous and in a proper spirit. But I must point out to the noble Earl that the Commissioners will of course have consulted with the county council under the first section, subsection (2), before making their report, and any observations or alternative proposals that the county council might choose to make to the Board would receive the most earnest and the most courteous consideration. But Lord Camperdown's Amendment would, I am afraid, do the very thing which he wishes to avoid, namely, cause
  756
  delay and complexity—and as it does not seem absolutely necessary, I hope, in the interests of the Bill that the noble Lord will not press it.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that as the Bill now stood it provided that when the report of the Commissioners, with such modifications or observations if any) as the Board thought desirable had been received by the county council "it shall be the duty of the county council to prepare one or more draft schemes to give effect to the report with such modifications (if any) as aforesaid." They were bound absolutely by the words of the clause to the report of the Commissioners, with any modifications inserted by the Board of Agriculture, in preparing their scheme. The noble Lord objected to delay, and wanted to co-operate with the county council. Would it not be very much better that if the county council did not quite like the report or the modifications suggested by the Board, they should be able to vary their scheme in some form or other from the report and its modification? It would be much more agreeable to them and he believed also it would be a much more satisfactory conclusion to arrive at. Even if the noble Lord could not accept Lord Camperdown's Amendment—which he would be very glad to support—he would suggest that some such words might be inserted as "or as they may think desirable," so as to give the county councils some power to vary their own schemes in accordance with their own views.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Is it not safeguarded in the Bill? The county council are to undertake this duty within six months after receiving the report, or within such extended time as may be allowed by the Board. There is no wish to override the councils; they have got six months.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNfeared he had not explained himself sufficiently. As the words now stood, the county council were bound by any modifications in the preparation of their scheme. They could not vary, or go beyond, or diminish, or do anything of their own free will. Surely it would tend to agreement between the parties—the Board of Agriculture and the county council—that there should be

  757
  such power, and the county council would be much more likely to act rapidly under those circumstances.
  LORD FITZMAURICEpointed out that there was an Amendment later on to add certain words which would go very far in the direction proposed. He wished especially to call the attention of the noble Viscount to the fact that not only had the county council been taken into conference by the Commissioners at the time of the inquiry and report, but that the county council came in again under Section 4(2) where all the provisions were set out for having a draft scheme and if necessary a public inquiry after advertisement, according to the same procedure as existed in other matters with which the noble Viscount was quite familiar, such as proceedings before the Charity Commissioners, the Enclosures Commissioners, and the Endowed Schools Commissioners.
  LORD BELPERsaid it was not very convenient to have to discuss under the present Amendment an Amendment which was coming up later. The noble Lord had referred to an Amendment of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to the effect that "a county council if they think fit may without receiving any such report as aforesaid prepare one or more draft schemes for the provision of small holdings in their county." As he understood, that Amendment was to enable the county council,propria mote, without any consideration or report, to prepare a draft scheme themselves quite independently of the Commissioners. It seemed to him, therefore, that some such words as those proposed by Lord Camperdown were absolutely necessary if Lord Carrington's Amendment was to be passed, for the reason that there would be possibly two schemes on the tapis—the scheme suggested by the Commissioners and the scheme suggested on its own initiative by the county council. It seemed absolutely necessary to put in, therefore, some words not only allowing the county council to put their observations before the Board, but also any alternative proposals which they might make, and that they should be considered by the Board with the other scheme. If that were not done the scheme of the county council, if it touched upon the same ground, might be a better proposal than the one put forward
  758
  by the Commissioners, and there might be considerable difficulty in arriving at the best solution of the question. He was afraid it was a little irregular to him to discuss a clause which was not reached, but as he concluded that Lord Carrington's suggested clause was sure to be accepted, he thought it rather important that they should consider it, and also consider what relation it would have on the clause now before their Lordships.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am informed there is a Royal Commission at half-past seven, and I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  House resumed.

  COMMISSION.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).

  Released Persons (Poor Law Relief).

  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries.

  Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland).

  Evidence (Colonial Statutes).

  Married Women's Property.

  Probation of Offenders (No. 2).

  Prisons (Ireland).

  Butter and Margarine.

  Post Office Sites.

  Paisley Corporation Order Confirmation.

  Leith Burgh Order Confirmation.

  Aberdeen Corporation Electricity.

  National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty.

  Llandrindod Wells Gas.

  London County Council (Money).

  Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway.

  City of London (Union of Parishes).

  Swansea Harbour.

  Oxford and District Tramways.

  Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water.

  London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).

  Colne Valley Water.

  Glasgow Corporation.

  North Staffordshire Railway.

  Armagh Urban District Council.

  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  House again in Committee.
  Clause 3:—
  Amendment of the Earl of Camperdown proceeded with.
  EARL CARRINGTON: The difficulty we felt was that we could hardly accept an Amendment which would lengthen the time—already very long—which must elapse between the inquiry by the Commissioners and the actual provision of small holdings. But I have a proposal to make to the noble Earl opposite. I am very anxious to meet his views if possible, and I propose in Clause 3, page 2, line 30, after the word "aforesaid" to insert "subject to such further modifications as the Board may make after considering any representations submitted to them by the county council." I do not know whether that would meet the noble Earl; but I am very glad to make that proposal.
  EARL CAMPERDOWNsaid that he was not quite sure that he had been able to follow the effect of the words. He felt that his noble friend and himself had the same object in view—they both wanted to get the county councils to co-operate, and they both wanted to be courteous to the county councils, but their methods of doing this differed. Tho noble Earl, as the clause stood, proposed to give them a report, and to say, "It is to be your duty to prepare a draft scheme to give effect to this report," and, as Lord Fitzmaurice had said, "if you subsequently object to this after you have drafted it, then you will have an opportunity of raising objections to it." His own plan was a different one. It was that when they had received the report of the Commissioners they sent the report to the county council and said, "Have you any observations to make upon it? If so, make them now, and make them before you draft your scheme." It seemed to him that that was a more civil way, and moreover, by adopting that course they would rather gain time than lose it, because, if they subsequently objected, there would be a local inquiry, and a great deal of time would be lost. But, as he understood, his noble friend to a certain extent met that, and as he did not wish to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily, he was perfectly willing to withdraw his Amendment at the present stage and to accept the noble Lord's suggestion, subject, of course, to
  760
  reserving his right, when he saw the Amendment in print, to call attention to the matter again on the Report stage.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that that arrangement was one which he hoped would meet with the concurrence of noble Lords opposite, and he thought his noble friend would see that if there was some little loss of time at the one end by accepting the modified edition of his Amendment, they would save time at the other end, and therefore, on the whole, the Government's great object would have been gained. What they were afraid was, as his noble friend and he had both pointed out, that the time, which was rather long as it was, would have been further prolonged; and they were rather jealous of doing anything of that kind, because they had been exposed to the criticisms, as no doubt the noble Lord himself was aware, that their machinery was too carefully guarded and too cumbrous. Noble Lords opposite were looking at these things from one point of view, and other critics were looking at them from another, and what the Government had to do was to try and satisfy both sets of critics, which was a rather difficult task.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthought the words proposed would meet the views of his noble friend; and, at any rate, they might be inserted in the Bill now, subject to consideration on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 30, after 'aforesaid' to insert 'or subject to such further modifications as the Board may make after considering any representations submitted to them by the County Council.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I have now to move after the word "schemes" in sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:
  "(3.) A county council if they think It may, without recognising any such report as aforesaid, prepare one or more draft schemes for the provision of small holdings in their county."

  761
  The object of that is that we think the county council ought to be able to prepare a scheme, without waiting for the report of the Commissioners. But a scheme of course must be prepared, otherwise the Board of Agriculture could not pay any of the loss, should there be any. You will find that under Clause 5, Subsection (3). Of course all schemes will require confirmation by the Board of Agriculture under Clause 4, and the provisions of Clause 4 will apply to such schemes. I think there was a complaint that this had been put down rather late; but I do not think we can be blamed for that, because it was only put down to enable the county council to prepare a scheme themselves, and thereby bring themselves within Clause 5. But there always has been power, and there is power now, to provide a small holding without any scheme at all. This clause, as I said, was not originally in the Bill, because Clause 5, Sub-section (2), was put in in Grand Committee in the House of Commons. It was in no way meant from any discourteous motives, and it was only put in so late for that reason.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 38, after 'schemes' to insert the following new sub-section; (3) A county council, if they think fit may, without receiving any such report as aforesaid, prepare one or more draft schemes for the provision of small holdings in their county."—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD BELPERsaid that he quite absolved the noble Earl from any improper motives in putting down the clause so late. He must really congratulate the Government that at the eleventh hour, after the Bill had been through all its stages in the other House, they had at last given effect in the Bill to what were said to be the proposals of the Bill—that the county council should have the initiative administrative power for the purpose of forming schemes for small holdings. He would only say that the reason why this had been left out was in consequence of the way in which the Government had deliberately drafted the first clauses of the Bill. There were three clauses in the Bill dealing with all the powers of the Commissioners, beginning with the inquiries, coming down to their decisions, and ultimately coming down to calling upon the county council; then the over-riding of the county council,
  762
  and then the Board of Agriculture directing the Commissioners to form a scheme themselves; and then at the fag end of this clause, was a sort of casual remark which the Government inserted to the effect that the county council might them selves, if they thought fit, of their own initiative produce a scheme. He would have thought that if the Government had wished to carry out what he believed were the intentions of a great number of the Members of the Government—to treat the county councils in a conciliatory manner and induce them to work cordially with the Commissioners—the framework of the Bill would have been that the county councils would have been put in the fore-front of it as the people who were in the first instance to produce a scheme. Then it could very easily have been said that if the county councils either neglected their duty or if the scheme they proposed was not such as the Commissioners, after inquiry, considered sufficient, the Commissioners could step in with a scheme of their own, the matter could be discussed between the county councils and the Commissioners; and in the last resort the Board of Agriculture could direct the Commissioners to over-ride the county councils in case they refused to give way. Instead of that, the position was that they had three clauses dealing with the Commissioners. The noble Earl himself, on the Second Reading of the Bill, had said that one of the objects of the Bill was to put pressure upon the county council, but he added with reason—at least, with reason from his own point of view, but not according to the Bill—"in case the county councils refused to do their duty." But in those clauses as they stood the county councils were never given an opportunity of saying whether they would do their duty or not. The Government produced their clause which went through the whole procedure to be followed by the Commissioners; and the county council had not a chance, until they were ordered to make a scheme on certain lines, of even suggesting that they might make a scheme at all, and it was only at this late hour, and in this casual way, that the Government recognised the county council. They said at last what they ought to have said in the first instance, that the county council, who were the real, major, principal administrative power under the Bill,

  763
  should be directed under the Bill first to make their schemes. He only wished that all the nice things that had been said about county councils by his two noble friends on the Front Bench, and by Mr. Harcourt in the other House, had found some little expression in the Bill. But it was quite clear that the Bill had been drafted in a totally different spirit in the first instance, and if the county councils were at all suspicious of the action of the Commissioners, His Majesty's Government had only themselves to thank. As he had said, they cordially accepted, even at that late hour, even the small modicum which had been given them, but he regretted very much that the Bill had now reached a stage at which it was impossible to re-draft it in the manner which he suggested it would have been so easy to have drafted it in the first place.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that he was not sure that he quite understood the situation even now. The county councils, in the present state of the law, had power to make arrangements for the provision of small holdings; and he understood from what the noble Lord had said just now that the object of putting this clause into the Bill was to enable them to get compensation from the Government in case of the small holdings not paying. He would ask the noble Earl whether he was right in that supposition.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Quite right.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that in that case it seemed to him that no county council would in future put its present powers into operation, but would always adopt this much more laborious, much slower, and much more difficult course, because by so doing they would guard themselves against loss. He did not think that was a very businesslike proceeding, or that it was the way to promote the easy increase of small holdings. In effect, although not of course in form, this clause repealed, for all practical purposes, the present powers of the county councils with regard to small holdings, and necessitated a slower method of procedure. He supposed the Government offices were very anxious for work. He had always thought that most Government
  764
  offices were rather glad to have what they called devolution, but the present proposal seemed to him to be centralisation with a vengeance. Everything was to be done by the central office in the future, and nothing by the localities.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNwho had an Amendment on the Paper to substitute the word "parishes" for the word "localities," said he did not wish to press this Amendment, but what he really wanted was to extract some information—from the noble Earl as to what "localities" meant. A scheme might specify the various things that were put down under the headings (a), (b), (c), and (d). There was no provision that it should specify anything, and he supposed it might be necessary to leave that somewhat vague; but, if it specified anything, he assumed it would specify what was put under the heading (b)—the approximate quantity of land to be acquired and the number, the nature, and size of the small holdings to be provided in each locality. "Locality" could not mean "county"; and surely it must mean some limited area. It might mean parish, district, hundred, or anything else; but it would be very much better if it were possible that the area should be defined in such a way as to make it perfectly clear that what the Commissioners. meant, what the county council meant, and what the Board meant, was to institute small holdings in a certain particular area, and that the rest of the county should not be left in any uncertainty with regard to the area in which the scheme was to operate. If there was to be a scheme, there must be to some extent a definite area; and he would move the Amendment with a view to eliciting some explanation from the noble Lord.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 40, to leave out the word 'localities' and insert the word 'parishes.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I will do the best I can to explain it. I think "localities" would mean a sort of district or group of parishes. It is a sort of drafting word. It is very difficult to get the exact, proper, right word, I admit; but what we have to do is to get a word which

  765
  expresses as nearly as possible a group of parishes or a large tract of land where this might be carried out. I think the noble Viscount will agree with me that it would be rather difficult to insert the word "parishes"; it might possibly be a better word, but there might be some difficulty about it, because you might be led into difficulties as regards the parish councils themselves. Would there not be the difficulty that they might perhaps ask to have a copy of the scheme sent to them, or power to hold an inquiry? They might make difficulties, and that is what we have to guard against; and therefore the word "locality" was put in, meaning a group of parishes, an undefined, large portion of land.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that he would make a suggestion to the noble Earl. Might he not accept "parish" or "number of parishes?" That, at any rate, would be definite, and would not give any particular reason for any particular parish having anything to say in the matter.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that both he and his noble friend Earl Carrington felt that there was a great deal in what had fallen from the noble Viscount. The only reason why the word "localities" had been used was that it was deemed desirable to make the scheme as wide as possible at this stage, before it came to the point of actually taking up definite lands, which came when the scheme was set in motion with the Lands Clauses, and all the other clauses of the consolidation Acts, incorporated. At the present stage they had not quite reached that point, and as he had pointed out earlier in the discussion, all the different stages, and the action to be taken at each of them, had to be very carefully considered. Be quite admitted that in proportion as they got nearer to the actual Order and final scheme precision of language became more and more important, and he thought that when they reached the later clause which dealt with the actual final scheme and with the Order, it would be found that the language was perfectly precise. At the same time he quite felt that those who were familiar with the operations of local government knew that parishes and groups of parishes were areas which were perfectly well known, and his
  766
  noble friend permitted him to say that between then and the Report stage they would go into the matter again, and see whether it was necessary to use more precise words.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that as he understood, the noble Lord's contention was that at this stage it was not desirable to define exactly what was meant. Perhaps the noble Lord would point out the clause he had been referring to as occurring later in the Bill, in which there was a definite statement.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that Clauses 4 and 5, especially Clause 5, dealt with the Order and final scheme, and when they reached those stages there would be a notice to treat under the Lands Clauses Act; and then of course particular lands and particular parishes would be set out.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNwished the noble Lord to understand that he did not in the least desire so to define the area as to raise the price of the land before the Order came into force. He was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment now on the understanding that the subject would be considered, and something more definite put in on the Report stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF PLYMOUTHwho had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "or other similar rights" in the subsection requiring a draft scheme to specify whether and to what extent grazing or other similar rights should be attached to the small holdings, said that the reason he had put down this Amendment was really for the purpose of asking for an explanation of the meaning of the words "or other similar rights." He quite understood the desirability of attaching grazing rights to small holdings, but he could not see what was meant by "other similar rights," and he thought the noble Lord in charge of the Bill might explain what those words really included, and what they were really meant to cover.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I have a very difficult task before me again, because I have to explain really what;he English

  767
  language means, and that is not a very easy thing to do. The noble Earl wishes to know why the words "or other similar rights" are put into this clause. I am told on the highest authority that "grazing rights" is a term which is not quite capable of exact definition. It is one of those English terms, I suppose, which is not very easily explained, and so, in order to protect ourselves as much as we can, we have tried to make the word a little more elastic, and have put in "or other similar rights." I am informed on high authority that that is the best way of explaining that phrase, which is not quite easy to understand, but, perhaps, these "similar rights" may include the cutting of bracken or fern for fodder, or similar commonable rights that could thus be protected. I am afraid I am in the hands of the noble Lord. I have not invented the English language, and therefore I am not responsible for it, but I hope he will see that there is no sinister motive at all in this, and that he will allow the words to stand in the Bill as those best qualified to judge think they would be really the best way out of the business so far as to ensure fairness to all parties.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsaid it seemed to him that his noble friend, because he did not understand one element in the Bill, introduced other words even less easy to understand. What they on that side of the House—speaking for himself, at any rate—objected to was that there was so much elasticity in the Bill, and they wanted it a little more clearly defined, if it was possible to do it.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid he spoke no doubt, in the presence of noble Lords on the other side who were acquainted with the principles of legal interpretation far better than himself, but it appeared to him that it was simply a matter of ordinary legal construction of the words, "or other similar rights." Those word would have to be construed in accordance with the well-known legal principle of ejusdem generis. That was to say, if then were certain words in an Act of Parliament of a particular description, followed by other words of a slightly more genera character, they had to interpret the later phrase so as not to go beyond the general
  768
  spirit of the earlier words, which were rather more precise. That was what was known as the principle of interpretation well known to lawyers as ejusdem generis, and he thought the interpretation of the words as to which they were being pressed, although they might not be capable of exact definition, would come under that principle. It had been asked what the particular rights in question were. In the olden days those who had considerable rights in the country—those who had grazing rights—also had rights of "pannage"—of turning out a pig at certain seasons of the year. That was rather a common right in the New Forest, in the southern part of his own county, and that was, he was informed, precisely the kind of right which in certain districts would be attached to holdings of this kind. For example, in the debate on the Second Reading, the Lord Nelson had alluded to the small holdings which he himself had established on the borders of the New Forest. One of the reasons why small holders had survived in that part of the country was that they had on the edge of the New Forest the right of turning out pigs at a certain season of the year. That was the sort of thing that he thought was meant by these words, and he really could not see how—with every desire to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite for more accurate definition—they could possibly use better terms than were used, because he thought that upon the principle he had quoted, those words were words which the Courts of law would have no difficulty in interpreting.
  EARL CAWDORsaid they did not appear to be getting much nearer to any definition as to what the words really meant. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had told them there was great difficulty in knowing what "grazing rights" meant. He thought they had better find out what "grazing rights" meant before inserting the words in the Bill. The noble Earl, in order to get over his trouble in not knowing the meaning of these words, was inserting other words the meaning of which neither himself nor the other noble Lord had any idea of. That was to say, he was curing one doubt by inserting some other words which no one could interpret.

  769
  Surely it could not be right that they should put in more words which no one was able to explain, and he certainly thought they should limit themselves to the unknown words they had already got, and not put in others which were even more vague.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the noble Lord had made out an admirable case, but he was afraid that he had forgotten the Small Holdings Act of 1892, in Section 14 of which the following words occurred—
  "Where any right of grazing, sheepwalk, or other similar right is attached to land acquired by a county council for the purposes of small holdings, the council may attach any share of the right to any small holding in such manner and subject to such regulations as they think expedient."
  Therefore their Lordships would see that in drafting this clause the example of 1892 was followed.
  EARL CAWDORsaid that might be so, but they had had the interpretation of that Act now from the noble Earl opposite, and the noble Earl opposite had told them that since 1892 they had not been able to find out the meaning of these words, and if, with all the enlightenment the noble Earl was able to obtain from his Department, he could not properly interpret the meaning of "grazing rights," he thought it was distinctly better not to add further and still vaguer words, and thus keep the admitted ambiguity on as small a scale as possible.
  LORD FITZMAURICEasked whether they were to infer that the noble Earl was able, from his own knowledge, to state that there had ever been any difficulty in the Courts in the interpretation of the words in question.
  EARL CAWDORsaid that he was only quoting the noble Earl who had the conduct of the Bill, and who had said that it was not known what was the meaning of "grazing rights."
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that that was not what the noble Earl (Earl Cawdor had said before. When he said that there had been a difficulty in the interpretation, did he mean that the matter had been brought into a Court of law, and that there had been a difficulty on the
  770
  part of the Judges in placing an interpretation upon the words? Every now and then some word of a rather general character was introduced into an Act of Parliament—like the famous word "place," which had given rise to an action which he believed had ultimately come to their Lordships' House as a Court of Appeal. If the noble Earl knew of any difficulty of this kind let him say so; but why did he imagine difficulties which had not arisen, and which, according to the view of the Government, were not likely to arise?
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that what was important in the matter was that those affected by the scheme should know definitely what scheme was proposed, and that afterwards, assuming the scheme to be carried into operation by the order of the Board of Agriculture, whatever "similar rights" might mean should be properly paid for by the council or by the Board of Agriculture upon taking the land. He thought that if they were to insert "grazing or other similar rights defined in the scheme," then at any rate those framing the scheme would have to say what they meant. He thought that the noble Earl might surely agree to something of that kind.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that as he understood it the suggestion of the noble Viscount was that the words should be "similar rights to be defined in the scheme." Well, of course it was assumed that they would be defined in the scheme.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I move that the words "to be defined in the scheme" be added after the words "or other similar rights."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 5, after the words 'or other similar rights,' to insert the words 'to be defined in the scheme.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4:—
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNin moving an Amendment providing that the time when which notice of objection to a scheme could be given should be not

  771
  less than thirty days after publication and advertisement of such scheme, said that if their Lordships would look at the clause they would see that the draft scheme was to be "published and advertised together with notice of the time within and manner in which objections are to be sent to the Board." The Amendment which he was about to move was to insert "being not less than thirty days after such publication and advertisement." Those words were intended to say that at all events the notice should be not less than thirty days, which he thought was a reasonable notice, and he hoped his noble friend might be able to accept it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 24, after the word 'Board' to insert the words 'being not less than thirty days after such publication and advertisement.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid I cannot accept that for this reason—that if there is anything wrong, and people want to object, they would hardly be a month doing it. After all, it must be left to the discretion of the Board to fix the time within which the objection must be made; we must be given a little discretion in the matter, and there is not very much fear, I think, that the Board of Agriculture wants now, or ever will want, to act very harshly. It is not a very serious Amendment, I will admit, but it certainly does not show any very great trust or confidence in the Board of Agriculture, and on balance I think I must ask the House not to press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD BELPERmoved to add to the first sub-section:—"Provided that where a draft scheme is prepared by the Commissioners it shall not be published or advertised until any county council concerned has had an opportunity of stating any objections thereto to the Board, and until such objections have been considered by the Board." He said the Amendment was for the purpose of providing that before the scheme was actually advertised and made public an opportunity must be given to the county council to object, and for a
  772
  public inquiry to be held, so that it might be ensured that the scheme was not published or advertised until the county council concerned had had an opportunity of stating any objections which they had to it, and until such objections had been considered by the Board of Agriculture itself. In a discussion with Mr. Harcourt this had been suggested by the county councils as an Amendment, and the County Councils Association had expressed then, as he wished to express now, that it was brought forward entirely in the interests of a conciliatory and practical arrangement being come to between the Commissioners and the county council. What they wished to avoid was county councils being placed in a position of public hostility to the scheme advanced until after they had had their objections fully stated and considered by the Board of Agriculture. He thought it would be found that so far from delaying any scheme, it would be likely to avoid a public inquiry at which the county council would have to appear in opposition to the scheme, and that, by discussion with the Board of Agriculture over the table, with the Commissioners present if necessary, an arrangement might at all events in some cases be arrived at which would avoid a public inquiry, which was the next process under the scheme. When they approached Mr. Harcourt about the matter he told them that the procedure which they desired was practically provided for in the Bill. But he had studied the Bill very carefully since then, and it was quite clear that it was not practically provided for in the Bill, and the county councils wished—and he presumed the Government would not object—to make it perfectly clear that the Board of Agriculture should give an opportunity for the county councils to state their objections, and to have those objections considered before the public inquiry was held. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 28, after the word 'publicity,' to insert the words 'provided that where a draft scheme is prepared by the Commissioners it shall not be published or advertised until any county council concerned has had an opportunity of stating any objections thereto to the Board, and until such objections have been considered by the Board.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I can assure the noble Lord that we are the last people who want to add to any public hostility to any scheme. As I understand it, the noble Lord thinks that if we give way on this point it will make public inquiries less frequent—that it would facilitate matters at that stage. It seems to me, however, that the noble Lord rather wishes to introduce a fresh and unnecessary stage. We did what we could to facilitate matters a little while ago, and I must point out that the county councils have already had six months in which to place their views before the Board, and it seems to me that the Amendment would undoubtedly complicate and delay proceedings, and not really have the effect that the noble Lord thinks it would have. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, but I am afraid I cannot give way upon this, and I must ask the noble Lord if he can see his way not to press the Amendment.
  LORD BELPERsaid he really had not heard any argument against his Amendment. He understood that Mr. Harcourt approved of it. The right hon. Gentleman told them that it was already provided for in the Bill, but having carefully looked through the Bill he had found that it was not provided for, and that was the only reason that he had moved the Amendment. The noble Lord seemed to be surprised that he should consider that a private conference might expedite matters by doing away with a public inquiry at which the county council might appear in hostility to the scheme; but it seemed to him only common-sense to have a supposition of that sort, because in talking matters over round a table one was often able to settle matters satisfactorily and to avoid what must be disagreeable to a county council and also disagreeable to the Commissioners—a public discussion over a point which might have been settled privately. Unless some further reasons were given for refusing the Amendment—which he had understood was looked upon favourably by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill in the other House—he could not withdraw it, at all events unless some arguments were produced against it, which at present had not been done.
  LORD FITZMAURICEthought there was less difference of opinion between
  774
  the two sides of the House on this question than his noble friend seemed to think, and he was sure he would hardly need his assurance that any proposal of this kind moved by him—especially when he was moving, as at present, on behalf of the County Councils Association—would be received by his noble friend with the greatest respect. He would just like to ask his noble friend to look at his own words. His argument was—and it was one which he fully understood and appreciated—that it would be better to have a communication at this stage between the county council and the Board than to have that communication, as it were, at a rather later stage, when it might assume, at a public inquiry, a more litigious and therefore a more disagreeable shape than if it were to take place in the manner which was rather vaguely sketched by his noble friend in the words of his Amendment. His noble friend had said that prior to the publication of the draft scheme the county council was to have an opportunity of stating any objection thereto. How did the Local Government Board or the Board of Agriculture or any other public body ascertain whether a particular local authority or the public generally objected or did not object to some particular scheme? What was the manner in which they gave an opportunity for the stating of objections? It was by a public inquiry, and therefore in reality all that his noble friend was doing was to propose—in rather vague and ill-defined language—at a slightly earlier stage what His Majesty's Government proposed, in more precise language, at the stage immediately following. The Government thought their own machinery was better, simpler, and more precise than that suggested by his noble friend. But that was not at all the same thing as saying that there were no arguments for the proposal of his noble friend, because the Government quite appreciated the objects he had in view, although they thought they had obtained them by the next sub-section, and obtained them in a better manner. All that would arise if those words were inserted on the top of the Government proposal in the next sub-section was that a very considerable amount of time would be lost in rather vague communications, possibly by letters passing between the clerk of the council and the Secretary to

  775
  the Local Government Board, and thus taking up a great deal of time—he would not say wasting time, but taking up a great deal of time in correspondence. Therefore it was very much better to adhere to the Government's proposal, and he was very anxious at this stage to press upon noble Lords opposite that the Government had already been exposed to criticism for having so guarded the machinery which they were bringing into operation for the creation of small holdings as that the machinery might prove so cumbrous as almost to render nugatory the objects in view. A member of the House of Commons, he was informed, had made a time-table by which he had shown that if everybody were to use all the different remedies which were given in the Bill to different parties to guard their interests against any kind of illegitimate interference or confiscation, it would take a period of at least two years from first to last under this machinery to create a small holding. It was unnecessary to assume that that time-table was quite correct; but even assuming that the period was only eighteen months, then the Amendment of his noble friend would add on still further stages and give still further opportunities for correspondence. All he could say was that if they sent back these clauses—possibly in a perfectly legitimate and reasonable shape—to the other House they would be so encrusted with securities and protections in addition to those which they already contained that they ran the risk of exposing themselves to a totally different class of criticism from that of noble Lords opposite, but one which would nevertheless be fatal to the Bill.
  LORD BELPERapologised for being persistent, but he did not think Lord Fitzmaurice, had appreciated his argument at all. His object was to avoid the further stage which was said by the noble Lord to be more satisfactory and more specific than his own. He did not want the public inquiry or the publicity, and he believed that by a few minutes' conversation with the Board of Agriculture it might very often be avoided. The noble Lord brought the accusation against his words that they were vague. He wished that half the words in the Bill were as specific and as clear as were the words he proposed to
  776
  put in. He was of course entirely in the hands of the House as to whether he pressed his Amendment or not. He could only say that although they were always receiving assurances that everything that the County Councils Association said would be considered, yet there was a strange reluctance on the part of noble Lords to put words into the Bill which would cover the points which the county councils wanted to see made clear.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that his view of the Amendment of his noble friend depended upon what the meaning of the next sub-section was. He himself had given notice of an Amendment on that sub-section to enable persons affected by the scheme to be heard at the inquiry, but as he read the sub-section it seemed to him to be intended to be an inquiry at which only the county council was allowed to be present. If that was so, would it not be almost better that this inquiry should be given up altogether, and that his noble friend's Amendment should be accepted? If it was to be an inquiry really to go into the whole matter, and to hear the views and opinions of owners or occupiers of land or other persons who might be affected by the scheme, that would be a different matter altogether. He did not really understand what the Government meant by this proposal. Surely there ought to be some occasion when there would be a local inquiry at which the persons affected by their land or their farms being proposed to be taken, should have an opportunity of being heard before the Order was absolutely made binding and conclusive. Perhaps one of the noble Lords would explain precisely how the matter stood.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid he did not quite see where the vagueness was. The machinery was already familiar to the Committee. It was a machinery which was constantly used in the case of schemes issued by the Endowed Schools Commissioners, the Charity Commissioners, and others. There was a preliminary inquiry, such as was provided for in the earlier clauses of the Bill. Then there was the draft scheme. Then, when that draft scheme had been published, it was the invariable practice—and he thought they would be attacked, and justly attacked, if

  777
  they did not follow it#x2014;to give an opportunity for the public inquiry which always arose upon objection. He saw no reason for departing from established precedent in these matters, and it seemed to him that the burden of proof was not upon them for following the general lines of inquiries in matters of this kind, which had now gone on for a period, from first to last, of something like 50 years, and not introducing a new set of conditions, more especially when it was borne in mind that, owing to the Amendment which had been inserted by his noble friend earlier in Clause 3—which was a modified edition of his noble friend Lord Camperdown's Amendment—they had gone very far indeed already to bring the county councils into line. And not even there was it done for the first time, because under Clause 2 the county council was to be consulted even before the report had been issued. So that now they were at the third stage in these transactions, and were getting near to the time when there would be proceedings under the finally approved scheme, and a notice to treat would have to be given eventually, when the scheme had ripened into an Order, and when the Lands Clauses Act might possibly have to be put into operation. The language, therefore, which they used at this stage was precise, and the opportunities given to the public body most affected were the ordinary opportunities. It might be a very fair thing to consider, when they got to the next sub-section, whether the right of attending the inquiry, and of having notice of that inquiry should be given, as the noble Viscount had suggested to other parties. He could not pledge the Government to agree to it, but he quite understood the suggestion, which, however, was a totally different suggestion from that made by his noble friend.
  LORD BELPERsaid he would not put the House to the trouble of a division, but he could not say that the arguments of noble Lords on the other side had convinced him in any way.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNmoved an Amendment to provide that a public local inquiry should be held by the Board if "any person affected" objected to the scheme. Now that the way was clear,
  778
  in the view of the Government, for a local inquiry he really thought that as this was the only inquiry, so far as he understood, at which the persons affected by the scheme in their own property or tenancies could possibly be heard, the persons holding the inquiry should not have the right to exclude them. He therefore proposed to insert after "Council" the words "or any person affected." If the noble Earl could show him that there was any other inquiry or means by which such persons could be heard before such Order was finally made by the Board of Trade under Sub-section 5 then that would be another matter, but so far as he could understand the Bill, this was the only opportunity. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 31, after 'Council' to insert 'or any person affected.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I hope the noble Lord will excuse me, but I do not quite understand the English of this Amendment, and I would like to ask what is the meaning of "any person affected." Would it mean any ratepayers in the county, or if not who would these persons be?
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I explained what in my opinion it meant.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Anybody affected by the scheme—any ratepayer?
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Not necessarily a ratepayer.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Not necessarily, but he may be.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he thought he had explained that what he meant by the words was an owner or occupier of land to be taken by the scheme. He supposed the scheme would be definite enough for that. If the noble Earl told him it would not be, would he tell him when and where it was proposed to make some such provision as he suggested?
  LORD FITZMAURICErather thought, as he had said before, that they were getting a little at cross purposes. This was not the point where the person whose

  779
  land it was proposed to take would come in. That person would come in when the Order was issued, and then there would be a regular inquiry. The Order would be issued and the proceedings would take place which were mentioned under the head "Acquisition of land" in Section 26.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I now understand that there would not be any ratepayer, but only persons who might be occupiers and owners. We have got the words "persons affected" in page 3, line 28, and by that expression we mean clearly all county ratepayers within any wide district affected by the draft scheme. They clearly ought to have the fullest information. But I must point out that it is quite another thing to give these persons an absolute right to require that a public inquiry should be held, because if this Amendment is carried, really that is what it comes to. Schedule 1, part 2, paragraph 3, gives private owners a right of inquiry where their land is proposed to be taken, but that is a very different thing from an absolute requirement that a public inquiry should be held.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNapologised for interrupting the noble Earl, but he thought it would shorten the matter. He was satisfied, by the reference of the noble Earl to the Schedule, that there would be, before an Order was taken up, a public inquiry at which persons locally interested would be heard.
  EARL CARRINGTON: They can insist upon that.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNagreed that under these circumstances his words would not properly come in at that point, and therefore he would withdraw them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT HILL,in moving an Amendment providing that "persons who have duly lodged an objection," should be permitted to appear and be heard at the public local inquiry, said that the object of his Amendment was to elicit from the noble Earl opposite why he objected to people who were affected being heard at the local inquiry. Under Sub-section (1) it was proposed that the Board should give them every opportunity of making
  780
  objections. They advertised in the papers, and did everything possible to elicit objections, but yet, when the local inquiry was heard, the objectors were not to be heard. It seemed to him rather hard that after giving the people all the trouble of making objections they should not be heard at the inquiry itself.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 34 after the word 'council' to insert the words 'persons who have duly lodged an objection.'—(Viscount Hill.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I think the House will admit that this Amendment goes a very long way. As I understand Lord Hill, this Amendment will give the right to any person who has lodged an objection to the scheme to be heard at the public inquiry. That would inevitably make the inquiry a very long and expensive one; and we are anxious upon all sides to make it as inexpensive and economical as possible. But I will admit at once that this economy ought not to be secured at the expense of fair play, and I may point out that the person holding the inquiry may be a Commissioner, and he ought to be given a discretion to decide who, besides the county council, should be heard. I honestly think that Viscount Hill's Amendment goes too far, and I am sorry we cannot accept it.
  VISCOUNT HILLsaid that he had no wish to cause any extra trouble or expense at the local inquiry, but it certainly seemed to him rather unfair that these people should be given all the trouble of making objections and so forth, and then, when the local inquiry came, should have no right to say a word.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHthought there was one person who had been overlooked, and who might reasonably make an objection to the scheme. He did not see where the persons who were desirous of having small holdings came in. Supposing a scheme recommended small holdings on ground which was entirely unsuited to the uses of those who desired to have them and supposing that persons of that kind objected and wished to be heard at the inquiry, surely one of the objects of advertising was that people who had that kind of objection to raise should be heard; it seemed to him that

  781
  anyone who made a reasonable objection ought to be heard at the inquiry.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I think anyone who made a "reasonable" objection would be heard; it is in the discretion of the person holding the inquiry.
  LORD CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGHasked, if that were so, what was the objection to saying so.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid it ought not to be assumed that these Commissioners—who were going to be, as his noble friend had stated on the Second Reading, men of experience in agriculture—would always act improperly. Surely it was not a fair thing to discuss this Bill, or any Bill, upon the assumption that everybody would act unreasonably.
  LORD BARNARDsaid that if a Commissioner was to hold an inquiry he might possibly be the person who had promoted the proceedings from beginning to end; therefore he might at the same time be the judge and one of the parties to be heard, and he would have the power to shut out people whom he would have known from the first would be in opposition to him.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that the next Amendment standing on the Paper was in the name of the Viscount St. Aldwyn, but his noble friend had asked him to move it. It was very nearly a pure drafting Amendment. If their Lordships looked at the sub-section they would see that the Board might settle the scheme or annul the scheme. What was the meaning of the words "settle the scheme"? He only remembered that being used once before, and that was in a Bill introduced this year; and when the question was asked what those words meant it was stated that they meant "settle the terms of the scheme." "Settle the scheme" here must necessarily mean much more than that; it must mean "confirm the scheme." And if that were so, he thought it would be an obvious improvement of the clause to put in the words "and may confirm"; because in the first place it would settle the terms of the scheme, and then they might either confirm or annul it.
  782
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 40, after the word 'fit' to insert the words 'and may confirm.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I really do not think there is much in that. It seems to me that if a thing is "settled," it is not necessary to "confirm" it. Everybody understands what "settling" a thing is; and I really hope that this Amendment will not be pressed.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked if the noble Earl would kindly explain to him, in clear words, what "settling" a scheme meant.
  EARL CARRINGTON: "Settle" means "confirm."
  LORD BARNARD: It is a term used, by counsel constantly in the sense of finally determining the terms of a contract, deed or document, but it does not—seal it, or establish it, or make it operative in any way whatever. The term "settle" merely means what Lord Camperdown has said—to settle the terms.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid he really did not think that there was any importance in this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Them why not accept it?
  On question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5:—
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he proposed to substitute the word "may" for the word "shall" in line 8. As the Bill stood, the assumption was that the scheme had been practically rejected by the Council, and Sub-section (2) of this clause provided that the Board should direct the Commissioners to take such steps as might be necessary for carrying the scheme into effect. It might be perfectly possible that after the council had raised objections to a scheme of that kind and declined to carry it out Sub-section (2) might come into force; and if the word "shall" stood in the subsection the Board, as he understood it, would be obliged to carry out that scheme literatim et verbatim without

  783
  any possible alteration, although they might themselves desire to make some kind of alteration, possibly to meet the objections of the county council, or for some other reason. Surely the word "may" was quite sufficient direction to a Government official as to what that meant.
  Amendment moved—
  In page 4, line 8, to leave out the word 'shall,' and insert the word 'may.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: This Amendment was moved in Committee in the House of Commons, and there was a division upon it. I will not say what the figures were—but it was not carried. I should like the House just for a moment or two to consider what the state of things is now at which we have arrived. The Commissioners have conferred with the county councils; then they have reported to the Board of Agriculture; then that Board has sent reports to the county council; six months or more have been granted to prepare a scheme; the scheme has been prepared and published; a public inquiry has been held, objections have been considered, and the Board has settled the scheme which the county council have failed to carry out. And now it is seriously proposed to raise the point as to whether the Commissioners should be ordered to carry out the scheme or not. I suggest that this is a point which it is perfectly impossible to entertain; we must resist this; it is a crisis in the Bill; and I must absolutely refuse the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he was sorry the noble Lord did not quite appreciate what he meant; there was really no crisis in the matter at all. If the Board of Agriculture wished to bind themselves to carry out a particular scheme without giving themselves an opportunity of altering one word or letter in the scheme, then, of course, if the noble Earl, as head of the Department, said they must be in that position, he really would not care to divide against it; but he would ask the noble Lord—because he himself had had some experience of administration—if he could not accept this Amendment, at any rate, for the sake of his own Department, to put in such a variation of this clause as to enable them to vary, if they wished, the draft scheme
  784
  which the county council had refused to adopt. He was quite certain, from an administrative point of view, that it would be perfectly safe to do that.
  EARL CARRINGTON: If the noble Viscount will allow me, I will consider that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved to insert a new subsection requiring that, before any order under this section was made by the Board, the draft thereof, together with a minute stating the circumstances under which such order was proposed, or intended to be made, should be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the session of Parliament. He said that this was a somewhat important Amendment, and he hoped their Lordships would allow him to occupy a little more time in stating its merits than he should otherwise have wished to do. He was obliged to refer again to the "Farmers' Charter." That charter took away from the tyrannical landlord the power of evicting his tenants and safeguarded the holding of the holder, and within nine months the power to evict any tenant all over England was assumed by the President of the Board of Agriculture. He ventured to say, although no tenant liked being evicted, any tenant would greatly prefer being evicted by his own landlord—a man he knew and had some confidence in, who knew the circumstances of the case individually and probably knew the tenant personally—to being at the mercy of an abstraction, as the President of the Board of Agriculture was mainly to the tenants of England. He had no doubt, from letters he had received, and from what he had heard from others, that the unpopularity of this Bill among the tenant classes in the country would very much surprise the President of the Board of Agriculture if he realised it. He (the Duke of Northumberland) did not care whether it was popular or not—that was more a concern for the Government than for him—but he asked their Lordships to remember what that power amounted to. For the first time in the history of England, as far as he knew, a Government official was to come down and forcibly

  785
  evict any tenant he liked from his holding. Hitherto that power had been confined to Parliament, and, in giving this power, they were putting the Minister of Agriculture in the position of Parliament. Hitherto, if they wanted to take a man's property, or to evict him from his holding, it had been necessary to introduce a Bill into Parliament, fight it before a Committee, and take compulsory power to do it, and there was every opportunity for witnesses to appear and for the whole case to be heard. Now the power was transferred to the Board of Agriculture, and could be exercised if the President of the Board of Agriculture pleased, although it was only, of course, to be exercised when the county council refused to act. They were informed the other day that it was very seldom that these compulsory powers would be put into force. The noble Earl had assured them that they really need not be in the least jealous about them, for it would be the very rarest thing in the world that they would be exercised. He did not think that if such drastic powers were only to be exercised very exceptionally it could do much harm to guard them very carefully, and his proposition was that when land was proposed to be taken compulsorily the scheme should be laid before Parliament for a certain time, so as to give opportunity for objection, if need be. That seemed to him to be a fair proposal, and he pressed it upon their Lordships. He anticipated one objection, and that was that it would cause delay. Lord Fitzmaurice had told them that a calculation had been made that under the Bill it would be possible for parties interested, if they put all the powers into force which they were given under the Bill, to delay a scheme eighteen months or two years. He would like to have a little fair play in this matter. The President of the Board of Agriculture was always telling them about his good intentions, and saying to them "Why do you object to my having these powers? I assure you I am going to use them most carefully; I should be the last man to abuse them" They accepted that entirely, but why, on the other hand, should it be supposed that the county council was going to use all the powers it could possibly bring to bear in order to delay these proceedings? Was that a fair way of treating the county council? It was all of a piece
  786
  with the policy of the Government—absolute distrust of the democracy they were supposed to admire. They had the most democratic system they possibly could have, and they imputed to them the very motives which they indignantly repudiated the bare possibility of being influenced by themselves, and took away every power from them which they could possibly take. He thought that was a sufficient case for calling in Parliament in circumstances in which it was necessary forcibly to over-ride these public bodies, and to over-ride for the first time, as he had said before, the rights of property. He did not know what objection might be made to his Amendment except that of delay, and he pressed upon the House that in these cases—which they were assured would be rare—it was worth while even that there should be some delay, if that delay resulted in securing a fair hearing for those who were the elected representatives of the ratepayers and of the people, and who, according to the Government's own theories of democracy, had every right to be heard. He had only one more word to say. Lord Fitzmaurice had said the other day that this power of over-riding local authorities was no new one, and that they on that side of the House entirely misinterpreted the theory of local government if they imagined that an unrestrained opportunity was to be given for the expression of the wishes of the people. He spoke under correction, for he knew the noble Lord was far better able to speak than he was on local government, but he submitted that the very rare cases in which a central authority could over-ride a public body such as a county council were confined either to cases of a very urgent character, such as matters connected with sanitation, where unless the power was promptly put in force, great evils would ensue, or else to cases of some wilful neglect. He did not know of any such instances except, as he had said, in the case of sanitation, which was altogether a peculiar instance and stood alone because of its urgency as well as of its importance. He did not know of any case where a duty which might be said to be a duty not of omission but of commission was forced upon a county council—a popularly elected body—by the central body. He believed that this was the first time it had been proposed, and it was noteworthy that it was now proposed by a

  787
  Government which was supposed to have an exceptional respect for the wishes of the people.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 24, after the word 'council' to insert the following new subsection: '(3) Before any Order under this section is made by the Board, the draft thereof, together with a Minute stating the circumstances under which such Order is proposed or intended to be made shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the session of Parliament."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I hope the noble Duke will not think it discourteous on my part if I confine myself entirely to his Amendment. It is evident that we cannot possibly accept it. It is another Amendment which will ensure delay, and although perhaps I ought not to say it again, it is one of those Amendments which shows a want of confidence in the Board. I firmly believe that cases where compulsion will be necessary will be very rare, and I say again, and I always will say, that we shall spare no pains to bring about a friendly settlement. But how much less easy would it be to bring about a friendly settlement if a direct opportunity is given for Parliamentary controversy I may also say that there is an additional objection to the Amendment, and to my mind it is a very serious one: it must be "not less than thirty days during the Session of Parliament." If Parliament is not sitting, that means a delay of six months or more. I feel sure that the House will see that it is practically impossible for me to accept the Amendment of the noble Duke.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNdid not quite understand whether the objection of the noble Earl was solely to the proposition that the Order should be laid before Parliament while Parliament was sitting, and that there should be a delay of thirty days to enable either House of Parliament to take exception to the Order, or whether he objected to the Order being laid before Parliament at all. If the latter was the case, he would venture to refer the noble Earl to what was at the time called "the charter of the villagers," the Local Government Act of 1894, in which, as noble Lords were well aware, there were powers given to a parish council, through a county council, to obtain
  788
  lands compulsorily for allotments. Then, if the county council refused to make the Order desired by the parish council, the parish council had to petition the Local Government Board, and that Board, after a local inquiry, might, if it thought proper, make the Order over the heads of the county council. Then the subsection went on—
  "Any Order made under this subsection overriding the decision of the county council shall be laid before Parliament by the Local Government Board."
  He thought it was a very serious matter for the Board of Agriculture to override the authority of the county council; and he did not see any argument that His Majesty's Government could adduce when such a case happened—which, as they themselves had said, would be very rarely indeed—why the Order should not be laid before Parliament, so that Parliament might at any rate, if it could find an opportunity, take cognizance of the matter. He thought that was a point His Majesty's Government really could not object to; and his object in raising it was, to ask whether at any rate His Majesty's Government would go as far as that in accepting the Amendment of the noble Duke.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid I cannot possibly do it. We object to the whole Amendment of the noble Duke. I am very anxious to meet noble Lords on the other side of the House in every way I possibly can, but this is an Amendment that I cannot possibly accept.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDwished to know what the noble Earl's objection was. The only objection he had made when replying to himself was the delay which it would cause. But the noble Viscount (Viscount St. Aldwyn) had suggested an Amendment of the Amendment which would avoid that delay. What then was the objection of the noble Earl? Was it—because that was really the only inference they could draw—that he was afraid of the scrutiny of Parliament into the actions which would take place under this clause?
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am absolutely unable to accept the Amendment; I cannot accept it in any shape or form, and I have already explained the reason why.
  LORD BELPERsuggested that it might be possible to put the Amendment in such a form that no objection could be taken to it. No answer had been given to the argument which had been used by Viscount St. Aldwyn. He had prepared a form of words which seemed to him perfectly reasonable, and which covered the same procedure as was pointed out with regard to the former Allotments Act, and would not cause any delay whatever. He proposed that the Amendment should read—
  "Where any Order is made under this subsection, a copy thereof, together with a Minute stating the circumstances under which such Order was made, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as possible after the Order has been made."
  That would not cause any delay—it would only inform Parliament of what had taken place. And, as this was a totally novel procedure, it was desirable that Parliament should know in what way the Commissioners were carrying out the Act. He did not know whether the noble Duke would withdraw his Amendment in favour of the one he had suggested, and, unless he was willing to do so, he did not, of course, wish to put it forward.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid it was merely a question of words, and, up to a certain point he preferred his own words. He was prepared, however, to withdraw them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 24, after "council" to insert the following new sub-section 'where any Order is made under this sub-section a copy thereof together with a Minute stating the circumstances under which such Order was made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as possible after the Order has been made.'"—(Lord Belper).
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDthought that the words "made or intended to be made" were necessary.
  LORD BELPERpointed out that an Order was supposed to have been already made.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Very well
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted,"
  their Lordships divided: Contents, 135; Not-Contents, 27.

  CONTENTS.

  Argyll, D.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Londesborough, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Manvers, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Sutherland, D.

  Mayo, E.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk).

  Wellington, D.

  Morley, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Morton, E.

  Basing, L.

  Camden, M.

  Mount Edgecumbe, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Munster, E.

  Belper, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Nelson, E.

  Blythswood, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Onslow, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Plymouth, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Powis, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Albermarle, E.

  Radnor, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Ancaster, E.

  Scarborough, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Bradford, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh. L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Clinton, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Clonbrock, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Westmeath, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Wicklow, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Dartmouth, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Digby, L.

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

  Falmouth, V.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Eldon, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Ebury, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Hampden, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Hill, V.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Hood, V.

  Estcourt, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Harrowby, E.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Forester, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Addington, L.

  Heneage, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Kesteven, L.

  Monbray, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  North, L.

  Sherbone, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Sinclair, L.

  Lamington, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

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

  Lawrence, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough

  Leconfield, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

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

  Leigh, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Lovat, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Robertson, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Middleton, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Blyth, L.

  [Teller.]

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Burghclere, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Hempill, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Herschell, L.

  Craven, E.

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

  Lucas, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Farrer, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Glantawe, L.

  Welby, L.

  Allendale, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  On Question, that Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that, before passing from the clause, he thought it necessary to trouble their Lordships with a few observations, which he would make as brief as possible, upon the financial provisions which were contained in the clause, in the hope that he might be able to extract from His Majesty's Government something more than they had yet been able to extract upon that very important subject. As the clause stood it read—
  "Provided that such expenses of the Commissioners as the Board certify to have been incurred by the Commissioners in the exercise of such powers in relation to any scheme and to be properly payable by the county council shall, on demand, be repaid to the Board by the county council in default out of the county fund."
  There was inserted Subsection (3) providing that if it appeared to the Board of Agriculture that the carrying out of a scheme under this Act had resulted or was likely to result in a loss, the Board might, with the sanction of the Treasury, pay or undertake to pay, out of the Small Holdings Account, the whole or any part of the loss. They had a promise, and he wished it could have been redeemed before they had to deal with this Bill, that the Treasury would lay upon the Table of
  792
  both Houses of Parliament a Minute by which they would explain how and in what circumstances they proposed to repay half the loss in the case of a county council which carried out a scheme of its own free will, and they had it in so many words from the Minister who conducted the Bill through the House of Commons, that in his belief it would be impossible for the Government to carry out the powers conferred upon them by the second subsection of this clause, and to obtain from a defaulting county council any loss which might be incurred by the Board of Agriculture in carrying out the scheme which the county council itself had declined to carry out because it anticipated a loss from it. That, he under stood, was the position of His Majesty's Government, but that was not the provision of the clause. The clause in itself did not lay any obligations upon the Treasury whatever under any circumstances. Yet they had been assured that this was a Bill so absolutely perfect that it was practically incapable of amendment. He tried the other day in the discussion on the Second Reading, and so also did Lord Belper and other Members of their Lordships' House, to obtain something more definite than they had hitherto had upon this subject, but all they got was a statement by the President of the Board of Agriculture, who had practically contradicted the statement

  793
  to which he had referred by the First Commissioner of Works as to the enforcement of the claim of the Government upon the county council where a scheme had been carried out by the Board of Agriculture at a loss. He could only say that even now he hoped His Majesty's Government might be able to reassure them upon this most important point. He could not himself see that any Government could force a county council to repay them the loss incurred in such circumstances, but, if that was so, why on earth did they not put it in the Bill? If they could get nothing more than they had yet had, he thought they ought to consider very carefully whether on Report they ought not to strike out Subsection (2) of the clause in order, at any rate, that the House of Commons might have the opportunity of reconsidering whether it ought not to make the clause carry out what the Government said was their intention and belief.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I can only repeat what I said in answer to Lord Onslow on the 19th of August. Lord Onslow then asked me whether His Majesty's Government would lay on the Table of the House the form of the Treasury Minute promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to relieving the county council of half of the amount of any loss incurred in carrying out any scheme under the Small Holdings Bill when passed into law, and, when the county council is over-ruled by the discretion of the Commissioners, the whole of that loss. As regards the first there is a pledge to relieve the county council of half of any loss incurred by any county council in carrying out a scheme under the Small Holdings Bill when passed into law, but on the second point I can give no pledge. The decision must depend on the circumstances of each case, Clause 5, Subsection (3), provides that if appears to the Board that the carrying out of the scheme under this Act has resulted, or is likely to result, in a loss the Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay out of the Small Holdings Act the whole or any part of that loss The noble Lord opposite said that it had been promised that the Minute should be laid on the Table, but the terms of it require such careful consideration that it is not possible to issue it before the end of
  794
  the session. That Minute will not deal with cases in which the Board are acting in default of the county council. These cases will be dealt with on their merits by the Board and the Treasury under Subsection (3), and there is no intention to make good any loss on allotments incurred by the parish councils. I am afraid that is all I can say to the noble Viscount. It is what I said on the 19th August, and I am afraid it is all the information I am able to give him.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNasked if the noble Earl really meant that where a parish council, which was a democratic body, did not require to acquire compulsorily or to hire land for allotments, the need being probably already satisfied, it was to be compelled by the Board of Agriculture to do so against its own will and against the will of the council of the county, and that, even if in such a case any loss was incurred by what he might call the tyrannical proceedings of the Board of Agriculture, the Treasury would not pay a penny to that parish towards that loss.
  LORD BURGHCLEREpointed out that the President of the Board of Agriculture would be responsible for this action, and that therefore it would be in the hands of the House of Commons and of Parliament to point out that the action of the President had been wrong. The answer of the noble Earl was thoroughly unsatisfactory. The case they put was not an exceptional one, and it was admitted that it was about as strong a case as could possibly be made. It was a case where a county council, acting in their own discretion, refused, after proper discussion, and despite its wishing to do its duty, to agree to a scheme because they thought it was not safe, and where they were overruled by the Commissioners of the Board of Agriculture, and a scheme was, in spite of their objections, forced upon them and a loss incurred. Regarding that in any way, could there be a stronger case? What was the good of the clause if the Government would not make good the full amount of the loss incurred by the action of the Commissioners and of the Board of Agriculture in such a case? It rather looked like taking back with one hand what they were giving with the other. He did not think it was possible to conceive

  795
  any case that could put the point more strongly, and he thought they should have some assurance that that was a proper case in which the whole loss would be refunded and not charged upon the rates, or at least that it was a case which His Majesty's Government would favourably consider.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWhoped the Government would give this matter careful consideration, and that they would give them an answer to the questions addressed to them repeatedly both before and during the progress of the debate on the Bill. He believed the Government had clearly got in their minds the course they intended to pursue, but they had never told them what it was. His Majesty's Government meant that wherever a county council had honestly tried to carry out the Act, and the result had been a financial loss, to give them some relief and to do it by Treasury Minute, and that in other cases where the Board of Agriculture, acting through the Commissioners, had carried out the scheme, and that scheme had proved to be a loss, despite the representations made to them by the county council the Board of Agriculture should abandon its powers under the Acts to recover from the county council the amount of such loss. If that was the intention of the Government they should say so. He thought that before the Bill left their Lordships' House they were entitled to have some explanation of what the Government really meant to do. Owing to circumstances arising in another place which he need not now recapitulate, and owing to the fact that that House was unable to deal with the financial clauses in the Bill, they had not yet got what was really the intention of the Government, and he asked them to make some statement in addition to that they had made, and which they had repeated that night.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid the point which was raised by the noble Viscount about the parish councils really arose more properly on Clause 24 Sub-section 2.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6:—
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHproposed to add to the second line in the clause
  796
  the words "purchase or." They had accepted the avowed objects of the Bill and he thought they might say that they had adopted them readily, and his only desire was to make the measure as useful and as comprehensive as possible. In his opinion, the addition of the words he proposed would add to its usefulness and comprehensiveness. Legislation dealing with matters of this kind, to be effective, and to make small holdings really useful, ought to give an alternative to enable the cultivator under certain conditions to become the owner of the soil he tilled. He believed that to be a cardinal point. It was rather the fashion in some quarters to laugh at what Mr. Jesse Collings was doing, but he had a very vivid recollection of the Government in 1885 being turned out on the Amendment to the Address dealing with three acres and a cow, and, whatever they might think of Mr. Jesse Collings now, they must admit that he had never deviated an inch from the position he then took up in advocating the establishment of a peasant proprietorship. If he could do anything to support that view, he would be glad to do so. It was a matter of common knowledge that, when a man was working for himself, he would do better than if he was working for a particular landlord, even if that landlord happened to be a parish or a county council. A similar Amendment had been moved in another place. They had heard a good deal about Amendments in another place and that a majority of them had been defeated. He admitted that this Amendment was defeated, but they could not overlook the fact that it was moved by a strong supporter of the Government, that it was spoken to and supported by other supporters of the Government, and that a pathetic appeal was made to the Minister in charge of the Bill to allow the Members to vote as they pleased. That was refused, and the Amendment was naturally defeated. The Government gave two reasons against the proposal. The First Commissioner of Works objected to any extension of the principle of purchase, because, he said, it would complicate his Bill; but on the other hand the Solicitor-General said that what those who supported the Amendment wanted was given under the Act of 1892.

  797
  If the Solicitor-General was right and there were those powers, the addition of these words would not complicate the Bill, and there was no apparent reason why they should not be included. They, however, thought that the powers under the Act of 1892 were not sufficient, and it was because they thought this that they proposed to introduce these words here. He hoped he would be correct in his description of the meaning of the two Acts. He might possibly make a mistake, but so far as he understood, whilst the Act of 1892 gave the power to acquire land which could be either hired or sold by arrangement, this Act, though it gave compulsory powers to acquire land, only allowed it to be used for the purpose of leasing. It was because they wanted also to include the powers of purchase that he proposed his Amendment. The noble Marquess, the Leader of the Government in their Lordships' House, seemed somewhat surprised that on the Second Reading of the Bill there was not much attention paid to the difference between purchase and leasing, and one of the reasons he gave them why purchase was not considered desirable was the introduction of the money lender. That, no doubt, was a strong argument against compelling the tiller of the soil to purchase. But they did not suggest in their proposal that it should be made compulsory. They only asked that there should be the option of purchase it a suitable man was there and everyone wished it. They might admit, though he did not know that he personally was quite prepared to do so, that under most circumstances leasing might be desirable, but it was a fact that in some districts purchase was the better system, and he hoped they would make this a thoroughly comprehensive measure and not bar the do to agricultural labourers, in whose interests he supposed it was introduced, if they de sired to purchase, and if the circumstances were suitable. There was one class which strongly objected to private ownership of land, and it was that class in favour of the nationalisation of land. He did not take it that their Lordships would be likely to agree with those views, but so far as he could make out it was the only class of any weight which objected to this proposal. One of the objections that had been taken to the Amendment was that if a small holder purchased his holding, he became rooted to the soil; but he could
  798
  remember the time when almost the whole of the Liberal Party were in favour of rooting the agricultural labourer to the soil. However that might be, he understood that the First Commissioner of Works objected that if a man became the owner of his small holding he would be rooted to the spot and would have no hope of further advance. He did not, however, think there was anything in his Amendment to prevent that. He gathered that the ultimate views of the First Commissioner of Works was that the small holder would begin with a holding of 50 acres, go on to 100 acres, and advance until he became a large holder. Then, he supposed, he in his turn would be expropriated for a new generation of small holders. One Member of Parliament had said their desire was to see the agricultural labourer walking erect. He was afraid that if they took that description literally, neither he nor they would see the agricultural labourer walking erect until we had that universal military training of which they heard so much. They all wished to see the agricultural labourer walking erect, and there was nothing in his Amendment to prevent it. He was fully in agreement with his noble friend in the desire to make this a useful and comprehensive measure, and he therefore begged to move the Amendment of which ho had given notice.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 32, after the word 'to' insert the words 'purchase or.'"—(The Earl of Dartmouth.)
  LORD NELSONreminded their Lordships of the interesting statement he was able to make on the Second Reading of the Bill. The freehold of 47 acres of land was sold under Lord Salisbury's Act to eleven people, and now, so far from the possession of the freehold preventing them from disposing of it and going up higher, a great number of the original purchasers had sold their land or done something else with it. At the present time, at the end of nineteen years, these freeholders had spent about £3,475 on the land, including the purchase price, draining, and the building of seventeen houses, and it was estimated that the rental now received from the buildings and allotments was £276. Did they for one moment believe that that expenditure

  799
  would have been made if they had been under a lease? He earnestly hoped there would be no impediment, but that some encouragement would be given to those who wished to purchase.
  EARL CARRINGTON: This is perhaps as important an Amendment as can possibly be moved on the Bill. Lord Dartmouth has stated his case with great good humour, with fairness, and with moderation. He tells us that his anxiety is to make the Bill more useful and comprehensive. We are very much obliged to him for that. It is the wish of everybody, though we may rather differ as to the way in which it is to be carried out. In mentioning Mr. Jesse Collings, he said that some people rather laughed at him. I am not one of those.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? I can tell you exactly where it took place. It was at that meeting at Birmingham at which the noble Earl was present. It was not him, but a good many did speak of Mr. Jesse Collings in a way hardly fair.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I do not remember it, but, if they did, I must entirely dissociate myself from anything said, and I am exceedingly sorry that it happened. I have known the right hon. Gentleman a great many years, more than I care to remember, and I have the greatest possible respect for him. In the old days when we were Radicals together we sat together on Radical platforms, and I always looked upon him, and I now look upon him, as the pioneer and the chief representative of rural reform on the side of the House on which he sits. My right hon. friend is very fond of one expression. He uses it very often, and he firmly believes in it. It is "the magic of property." I am not quite so certain that the magic of property has the significance that he applies to it. What the people really want is security of tenure, and I venture to think security of tenure is attained under this Bill. I may perhaps be permitted to remind the House that the main principles of the Bill are letting land on lease with security of tenure at a fair rent, as against the establishment of a peasant proprietorship. We are told that in this Bill there is very little security to be found, but I venture to point out that the tenants will live, not
  800
  under a private landlord at all, but under a council which will be elected by themselves, and that, more important still, the burdens and conditions under which they will live will be settled by rules confirmed by the Board of Agriculture. I venture to think that under those conditions there will be practically very good security of tenure for the tenants. The main principle of the Bill, as I have said, is county councils letting land on lease, land that they can purchase or hire, as against peasant proprietorship. The point was argued at considerable length on the Second Reading. I do not want to trouble the House again with a Second Reading speech, but I tried to show that the disadvantages of peasant proprietorship were fully made out by numerous authorities whom I quoted at the time. Perhaps I may, if I am not troubling the House too much, say one word about the great instance of successful purchase in a place called Catshill, which is invariably quoted, as it is the trump card that is always used by speakers when they are advocating peasant proprietorship. No doubt the scheme has been a great success. Only one man has had to be got rid of for not cultivating his land properly, and I believe there are no arrears in the payment of half-yearly instalments. When the land was divided into thirty-two holdings, and when the time came for the payment of the first instalment of the purchase money, it was found that only one half of them could pay it. It was therefore arranged that the other half should be taken on as tenants for three years till they had saved enough money to pay the first instalments (one-fifth of the purchase price and expenses). When they had done that the land was conveyed to them. The scheme has been a great success, and I am not going to argue that it has not. What I should like to point out is that people purchased that land and were glad to do so, but that they could not get away from being first compelled to lease it. There is a village near Evesham called Littleton, and about twelve months ago a petition was presented by thirty-six men asking the county council to buy a farm of thirty acres which was then in the market. The petitioners stated the amount of land they wanted and the rent they could pay. The county council eventually bought about sixty acres, and when they approached the petitioners they found that only four out of the thirty-six could

  801
  provide a fifth of the purchase money. Advertisements were therefore inserted in the local papers, and all the land has now been sold. But the thirty-two petitioners, although well qualified and having sufficient capital to work it as tenants, were unable to pay down the instalment for purchase, and are deeply disappointed at not being allowed to hire the land. At Fairfield, another village near Catshill, the county council agreed to buy eighty acres with the idea of selling it to men who, as tenants of the parish council of Belbroughton, had saved enough to provide the fifth of the purchase money. A deputation of these men, however, waited on Mr. Impey and asked him to petition the county council asking them to postpone action till after the passing of the Small Holdings Bill, so that they might become tenants of the land instead of purchasers.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: May I interrupt. We are not suggesting that you should compel these people to buy. In your own Bill you give the opportunity of leasing, and all we ask is that they should have the option of leasing or purchasing as they desire.
  EARL CARRINGTON: They have the option now under the Bill of 1892.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: Not of purchasing the land which is compulsorily taken in this way. They have the option where it is done by arrangement, but not where the land is taken compulsorily.
  EARL CARRINGTON: If the Act of 1892 was the success some people tried to make out it was.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I do not care twopence about the Act of 1892 now. Under the Act of 1892 you can purchase by arrangement, but under this Bill in which you give powers to take land compulsorily you may lease compulsorily but you may not purchase.
  EARL CARRINGTON: That is the Bill and that is the scheme.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: Then I hope it will be altered in my direction.
  EARL CARRINGTON: That is the Bill and that is the scheme, and I have to say it is absolutely impossible to accept the Amendment.
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHsaid the noble Earl opposite had referred to the historic provision beginning in 1885 when the Government of which he was a member was turned out. He (Lord Courtney) took part in that division and voted with the minority. He gave that vote, not with reference to the question which occupied the minds of many members at the time, the grave constitutional question which afterwards became of paramount importance, but with a view to the merits of the Amendment itself, because he then believed, and he still believed, that the policy of Mr. Jesse Collings was not the policy which deserved the support of Parliament and which was really to the benefit of the agricultural labourer. He had never himself desired to see the agricultural labourer rooted to the soil, in the sense in which those words had been employed, and it was in perfect consistency with the vote he then gave that he now supported the Bill as it stood against the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. As the case now stood, land could be acquired by purchase by agreement, and the tenant could become the purchaser by agreement. What the noble Lord wished was that the labourer should be able to purchase the land which the county council might, under this Bill, acquire compulsorily. The real question was whether it was convenient and expedient to use the extraordinary powers of compulsion, in order to make the agricultural labourer the absolute owner instead of his being a leaseholder under conditions of perfect security, and under conditions prescribed by the Board of Agriculture. He ventured to say that all the conditions of successful holdings would be attained by the security which the tenant would obtain under the lease granted to him, and that if they added the power of purchase, they would probably land him in embarrassment, and reproduce the spectacle so constantly presented to them in countries where there was a peasant proprietary of embarrassed owners, overcome with debts and in constant difficulties in consequence. Lord Nelson, who had supported the Amendment, made a speech to which

  803
  he had listened with the greatest interest and attention on the Second Reading. He referred then, as new, to an instance where land had been acquired by agricultural labourers, but he proceeded to say that the original purchasers had passed away. They found that they could not retain the land, and it had now passed into the occupation of other persons. In the course of that speech the noble Lord made one statement which was most valuable as expressing the experience which he, with his long knowledge of the subject, had a right to express with the authority to which he was justly entitled. He adjured their lordships to realise the truth that any person who started as a small holder in debt was in a hopeless position. Any person who started as a small holder in debt was in a position of the greatest peril and danger, and the objection to the proposal made was that they were proposing, for the sake of an advantage which could be secured by an agreement, to exercise the power of compulsion in order to enable a man against his own interests to start in a position of embarrassment and debt. This was an experiment, which they were now instituting, of the greatest interest, and they all viewed it, not only with sympathy, but also with anxiety. They wished, if possible, to plant a larger number of small holders throughout the country, but the thing he was sure they all desired to avert, and which they would all deprecate, was the establishment of an indebted peasantry, a peasantry in a hopeless position. They could not do the best to the land which they occupied, they were agriculturists impaired in the conduct of their holdings, which would become deteriorated. He suggested that they might well be satisfied with the commencement of an experiment which they had in the Bill. Let them try how it worked with compulsory leasing, and not embarass it with compulsory purchase which entailed the starting of a man in his new career with a debt and all the difficulties with which they were familiar in the experience of other countries. The Leader of the House, in an interesting speech at the close of the debate on the Second Reading, had referred to his own experience as Viceroy of India, where the indebted peasantry had dispelled from his mind views which had been instilled in it as a young man
  804
  by the teachings of John Stuart Mill. That experience of the noble Marquess derived from India, fortified the appeal which he (Lord Courtney) made to their Lordships to he content with the Bill as it stood and not to embarrass the experiment by entering upon the field of compulsory purchase with the dangers attendant thereupon.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYclaimed to speak on behalf of the agricultural labourer. They were told, he said, that the Bill was an Agricultural Labourers Bill. He had had a large experience in developing his properties in small holdings, and he quite agreed with Mr. Jesse Collings that there was great feeling on the part of agricultural labourers that they should be allowed to acquire and hold the land themselves. The noble Lord who had just spoken talked about a small holder starting in business with a heavy debt, but he maintained that by getting his money from the county council and consequently paying a comparatively low rate of interest, he would be in a better position and would pay less, notwithstanding the interest, than he would otherwise pay in the shape of rent. Only a week ago he created some small holdings a mile and a half from Grantham in order to test the demand. He had no applications for out and out purchase, but he had several applications for purchase if he could spread the payment over a series of years, and he had no hesitation in saying, having studied the question and supporting the Government in their desire to plant more families on the land, that, if only Lord Dartmouth's scheme of allowing labourers to purchase their holdings was adopted, it would be met by extreme appreciation from all parts of the country.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that if he had agreed with his noble friend who had just spoken he would have been quite content with a silent vote, because he was afraid he had had to trouble their Lordships many times on this Bill, but he confessed personally—and he spoke for himself alone—that he would prefer the Bill as it was. It was a serious thing to give the wide powers of hiring in the Bill, and he thought that would be felt by every noble Lord on that side of the House; but those powers were in some measure limited by the fact that

  805
  they could only be given when persons could be found who were willing to hire the land as tenants under the county council or the Board of Agriculture. It might, of course, be said—and he had no doubt that his hon. friends who had addressed their Lordships would say—that if they were to give compulsory powers of purchase and hiring as against the person owning the land and in favour of the county council or of the Board of Agriculture, there was no reason why they should not also give them in favour of other persons who desired to acquire the land of those who were to be compulsorily expropriated. He thought, however, there was a difference between the two, and he confessed that in spite of what had been said he did not believe small holders, if established as owners, were likely to succeed. He agreed with what had been said by Lord Courtney. He voted with him in those days against Mr. Jesse Collings' Amendment. He would like to ask their Lordships whether it was not a fact that many years ago there were a large number of small holders in England, and whether during the last fifty or perhaps 100 years these small holders had not one after another disappeared. Why had they disappeared? They had disappeared because they could not continue to exist under the changed conditions of agriculture in this country. Their holdings became mortgaged, they became burdened in all kinds of ways, and they were unable to find capital on reasonable terms for the cultivation of their holdings. The equipment of their holdings, the house and the buildings, cost them so much that they found it absolutely impossible to maintain their position, and they one after another saw their holdings swallowed up by the large landowners, and let either as large farms or in small holdings to persons who held them under more favourable conditions. That was a fact which he did not think anybody could dispute. Supposing under this Bill or under any Bill they were compulsorily to acquire a large area of land now held by large owners, and were to split it up into small freeholds, would not the same thing happen again? He could not believe, so far as he could see, that under any conceivable fiscal system in this country under which they could not have protection, and a very heavy protection, small holdings would prosper any more in the future than they
  806
  had in the past. If that was so, would their Lordships be justified in inserting the Amendment which would give compulsory powers, compelling one man to sell his land in order that it might be handed over to another. Of course, if it was for the good of the State and the community generally, there would be a case for it. He spoke for himself alone, and he was very sorry to differ in opinion from his noble friends on that side of the House. But he could not say that it would be for the good of the community at large to try to establish a large system of peasant owners again in this country, because he was honestly convinced that such a system could not be maintained.
  THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYsaid he had had no intention whatever of addressing their Lordships at any period or stage of the measure, but he felt bound entirely to differ from the view put forward by his noble friend behind him. He did so with the greatest regret, because he had had during the whole of his political career a close connection, and he might say an affectionate connection, with him, and to differ with him must necessarily be to him a source of sincere sorrow. He could not, however, follow the arguments he had put forward against the acceptance of the Amendment. He himself considered that the proposition of Lord Dartmouth was one which would commend itself to their Lordships for the simple reason that there was no compulsion about it. It merely proposed to give a man who was to obtain the land he wanted the option of purchasing it if he wished to do so. He always thought there was a misnomer used with regard to the transfer of land. There was not in England or Ireland any question of compulsory purchase. It was a question of compulsory sale. The people were not compelled to buy, but the owner was compelled to sell if it was considered necessary to make him do so. He spoke for himself, and he did not hesitate to say that he always regretted that there should have been introduced in the Bill the question of the hiring of land. He should have liked to have seen the purchase and not the hiring of land, for the simple reason that he thought in the end the question of hiring would be extremely detrimental, not only to the man whose land was taken, but also to the man who acquired it. The noble Lords who had spoken had entirely ignored

  807
  the position of the persons from whom the land was taken. He thought it was very hard upon him if he was compelled to sell his land and got fair compensation for it, but what would be his position at the end of the period of so-called hiring? It might be that the person who had hired it on terms which very likely the owner thought most unsatisfactory would return it to the unfortunate owner in a state absolutely different from the condition in which the small holder acquired it, and the owner would have no compensation paid to him. He would have had his land more or less ruined before his eyes, and he would have to take it back and return it to its original condition, with perhaps a further chance that it would be taken again for hiring. He thought purchase should have been the main object of the Bill. He had had no intention of addressing their Lordships, and he could therefore only speak from memory, but he thought that a short time ago he read a speech which the Duke of Portland addressed to his tenantry at Welbeck in which he declared he had given a large number of acres for the purpose of small holdings, and that, although he equipped and stocked them, and started the people on them with no debts whatever, yet in a few years he found them in the unfortunate position of being absolutely ruined, and had to take back the holdings. He had risen to explain why, for the first time in his life, he differed with his noble friend behind him, and why he most cordially supported the Amendment.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): The noble Marquess who has just sat down has admitted that he has no individual or personal knowledge on the question, such as that obviously possessed by the noble Viscount who preceded him. The speech of the noble Marquess himself was sufficient to convince us of that. The noble Viscount, on the other hand, has evidently thoroughly studied the question, and thoroughly understands it. On my property in Yorkshire there are, on the edges of the moors, a considerable number of small farms and small holdings. Amongst them there are several freeholders holding about fifty or sixty acres, and in the forty years or so that I have possessed the property almost all those persons have been obliged to sell because they found, under the altered
  808
  circumstances of agriculture, they were obliged so heavily to mortgage their holdings that they had no alternative. That is definite proof. That is a case which has come under my own individual knowledge, and it is one of the reasons which have induced me to lay aside the opinions I once held, and to believe that you would not do any real good to the labourers or to other persons who desire to obtain these small holdings if you were to encourage them to obtain them as freeholders. I believe that that system would turn out to be highly unsatisfactory and highly unsuccessful. It is for that reason that His Majesty's Government have preferred the system of hiring which does not involve these responsibilities. If you are to take any kind of protection against what may happen to these small freeholders, you will not give them anything that can be properly be called a freehold. You will give them land of which they will be the nominal owners, but they will be under all sorts of restrictions as to mortgaging, as to dividing, and as to the powers of sale, or even as to the powers of willing. That is not giving them "the magic of property." When we hear of "the magic of property," I suppose what is meant is the pride any man feels in being the possessor of a small property with which he can do what he pleases. You eannot, unless you want to establish a thoroughly unsatisfactory system, give these men complete and absolute disposal of the land. Therefore, my Lords, you had better not speak of them as persons in the character of real and substantial freeholders.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I desire to say one word, because I do not entirely agree with either of my noble colleagues who have addressed your Lordships.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I wish I had waited.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I desire to express my entire agreement with the noble Viscount behind me in what he has said as to the great difficulty, I may say the impossibility, of creating wholesale and all over this country a great system of small owners of land. It is perfectly true that owing to natural causes small owners in this country have gradually disappeared, and, so far as I have had

  809
  personal experience, the attempts to create small ownerships have not been particularly encouraging. I am not going to inflict on the House my personal experience, but Lord Onslow's Committee had before it a very full account of an experiment of that kind in a part of England with which I am concerned. I should deprecate any attempt to create a system of small owners on a large scale, but that is not what Lord Dartmouth proposes. My noble friend suggests that in cases where land is taken compulsorily there should be the alternative of purchase, and I am in favour of that, because I am under the impression that if a small owner is to succeed he can only do so by an amount of hard work, and, indeed, drudgery, greater than any cultivator of the soil is ordinarily willing to undertake. The only incentive to exertions of that kind is to be found in the sentiment of ownership and in that feeling of responsibility which belongs to the man who knows that he has to sink or swim according as he makes his holding a success or not. There is another reason why I lean towards the Amendment of my noble friend. It is only by the creation of actual ownership that you will extricate
  yourselves from that web of complications which must be the inevitable accompaniment of a system of hiring. As long as you have merely a system of hiring, so long you will have claims and counter claims, arbitrations, and appeals, and all the restrictions and reservations of which we so much desire to get rid. All this would disappear with actual ownership.
  I will only say one word more before I sit down. I have a suspicion that his Majesty's Government prefer hiring, because they prefer to throw on the shoulders of others the responsibility they really ought to assume themselves. They are not going to put their bottom dollar on a system of small holdings; they want to put somebody else's bottom dollar on it. I venture to think that in that fact is to be found one explanation of the marked preference they have given to hiring. I shall vote for the Amendment because I wish to see the experiment of purchase as well as hiring tried under the Bill.
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted,"
  their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 40.

  CONTENTS.

  Argyll, D.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Munster, E.

  Basing, L.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Nelson, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Onslow, E.

  Belper, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Blythswood, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Radnor, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Camden, M.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Stanhope, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Zetland, M.

  Westmeath, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Wicklow, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Ancaster, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Digby, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home).

  Cawdor, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Ebury, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Hampden, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Hill, V.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Hood, V.

  Estcourt, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

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

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Harewood E.

  Forester, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Heneage, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Addington, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Londesborough, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Lamington, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Morley, E.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Leith of Fyfie, L.

  Morton, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

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

  M ldrum, L. (M. Muntly.)

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Middleton, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Templemore, L

  Mowbray, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Ventry, L.

  North, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Panrhyn, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Blyth, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Burghclere, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Herschell, L.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Kestever, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Craven, E.

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

  Leconfield, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Powis, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Manners, L.

  Farrer, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  St. Aldyn, V.

  Glantawe, L.

  Sanderson, L.

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

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Allendale, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Welby, L.

  House resumed and to be again in Committee to-morrow.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTION FOR PROPELLING POWER) BILL.
  Bill read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Bill brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Saturday next: (The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell). (No. 195.)

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Before the House adjourns I wish to make a statement as to what passed earlier in the day with respect to the question put to me by Lord Lansdowne. On considering the statement he made as to the intentions of the Opposition with respect to the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, and after consultation with others, I have to state that it is not the intention of the Government to proceed with that measure. Assuming that the Bill is only of be read a second time for the purpose of recasting it on the lines indicated by my noble friend, it seems to the Government that such a proceeding is not likely to be in any real sense abone fide Second Reading. It would, in fact, he not a case of reading
  812
  one Bill a second time, but reading second time another Bill entirely different from the first both in principle and effect, and, therefore, any time spent in that proceeding would be practically and really a mere waste of time and would lead to no fruitful result. I think it would be more in keeping with the duty of the Government and the frankness we owe to the House that we should say that we should offer the most strenuous opposition to such a proposal as that put forward. In these circumstances we think it better not to waste the time of the House by taking any further steps with regard to that Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am bound to say that we have heard the second statement of the noble Marquess with very great disappointment. The observations which he made to the House earlier in the evening led us to hope that we might count on the cooperation of noble Lords opposite in bringing within the reach of the people of Scotland some, at any rate, of the advantages which we believe they so much desire. Our co-operation would have been given gladly and in perfect good faith. It is quite true that there were certain proposals made by His Majesty's Ministers which we could not accept; but there were others which we were ready to discuss with them, not only with an open mind, but with a

  813
  belief that they might have been passed into law greatly to the advantage of all concerned. Without the co-operation of His Majesty's Government it is quite clear that our task would present great, if not insurmountable, difficulties. All I can say is that we must consider the new situation which has been created, and that we greatly regret the decision at which the noble Marquess has arrived.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I did not hear the preface, I am sorry to say, with which my noble friend began his announcement with regard to the fate of the Scottish Bill. I did not hear the ground on which he founded it, and, therefore, I am not prepared altogether to take up what he said; but I heard the announcement with which he concluded his remarks, in which he said it would be a waste of time for the House to continue its labours on that Bill in the circumstances of the remarks made by my noble friend behind me this afternoon. Well, I do not complain at all of the decision of the Government. I should he the last to complain of that decision of the Government, so far as it regards the Lowlands of Scotland. I deplore their disinclination to continue the valuable discussion in which we had entered, because—I hope my noble friends opposite will not think me discourteous in saying it—I had looked forward to the prolongation of the debate for the production of some one single argument in favour of the Bill. That argument has not been adduced in any discussion to which I have listened in this House. It is, however, a mere academical regret that the Bill is fated to disappear without any argument in its favour having been adduced in this House. What I would venture to point out to noble friends opposite is this, that they take on themselves a great and serious responsibility in throwing aside for another year those parts that relate to the crofters of Scotland, which have been received with great acceptance in this House, and which were eagerly looked forward to by the Highland population which they affected. They have done this in consequence of an announcement, not hostile to the policy of small land holdings of Scotland as a whole, but because the Bench on this side declared their preference for one of the two options of small land holdings policy offered by the Government, They
  814
  preferred the English option as against the Scottish option. It is not on the ground of a hostile policy, that is what I want to make clear; it is on the ground that they are preferring one Government policy for another Government policy over that part of the island which is called the Kingdom of Scotland. I have one more thing to say—I am not sure I am in order in saying it; but whether I am or not, I am determined to say—that it is on the Government, and on the Government alone, that rests the postponement of all legislation for the amelioration of the condition of the crofter population in the Highlands, which was held out as an inducement to Parliament.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): I think my noble friend who has just spoken has hardly realised the situation in which the Government has been placed by the action taken by the Opposition. What does that action amount to? The action they propose to take was simply to eviscerate the Bill proposed by the Government. I do not think that noble Lords opposite will deny that that is the effect of the proposals made by the noble Marquess. Under these circumstances it was impossible for us to meet noble Lords opposite. There was no desire to help the Bill through on the lines on which it wets introduced, and it is impossible for us therefore to accept the proposals that were made. It was an impossible thing for us to ask the other House of Parliament to join in such a proceeding as noble Lords opposite have tried to force upon us.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I would like to ask the noble Lord, did the members of the crofting counties who waited upon the Prime Minister complain that the Bill had been eviscerated, or did they ask him to proceed with the crofter clauses?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I believe we are all out of order, but, in reply to the noble Viscount, I can say that I believe, so far as my information goes, and it is not very extensive, though I hope so far as it does go that it is accurate, that those who were most qualified to speak for the northern parts of Scotland are quite willing to combine with those who represent the other counties in Scotland in

  815
  supporting the action of His Majesty's Government in this matter.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If necessary I will put myself in order, but I ask the House to grant me the same indulgence as it has granted to other noble Lords. We have never yet had any explanation of why the Government changed their original and excellent intention of legislating for the crofter districts of Scotland in a Bill by itself. That Bill was announced in the most gracious Speech from the Throne at the commencement of last session. At the same time it was intimated that other parts of the country, by which I suppose are included the Lowlands of Scotland and England, were the subject of inquiry, and that when those inquiries were completed legislation would be introduced. We have never yet had any explanation of the change from that original and excellent intention, but that change has been the cause of the difficulty in which we have been placed.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Before the adjournment of the House, might I ask the noble Marquess a question with regard to another matter—the Land Values Bill. I understood the noble Marquess to say that he proposed to take the Second Reading on Friday. I wish to point out to him that there are already one or two Motions on the Paper for Friday, and also that it is a very early day to propose to take the Second Reading of a Bill which has only been brought into your Lordships' House to-night. We shall be on this Small Landholders Bill certainly all tomorrow, and if we proceed at the present rate we shall not finish to-morrow. Then I understand there is the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, the Patents Bill, and also the Amendments to the Evicted Tenants Bill. In those circumstances I hope the noble Marquess will not hurry us so very much, as he will if he takes the Bill on Friday.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I rise to move that this House do now adjourn. In doing so I have to say, in answer to the noble Lord who has just sat down, that perhaps it would be rather hurrying to take the Bill on Friday, and I would propose to take it on Saturday. I am afraid I shall be obliged to ask the House to meet on Saturday at twelve o'clock and sit till six, and, under those circumstances, I
  816
  will put the Bill down for Saturday' When I move the adjournment of the House on Friday I shall make the Motion that we meet on Saturday from twelve till six.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.