Sitting of 24 August 1907

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3907. China (Chungking).
  No. 3908. France (Lyons, St. Etienne, and Grenoble).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN (COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendment.
  Moved, "That this Amendment be considered."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I call attention to the fact that the Orders of the Day are not on the Table, and we cannot tell in what order the business is to be taken? I feel inclined to move the adjournment of the House until we can get the ordinary Papers necessary for the proper transaction of business. I do not think we are being fairly treated.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, as the first Order on the Paper is mine, perhaps I may be allowed to reply. There has been no change in the order of business, at any rate so far as regards the first two Orders on the Paper—namely, the consideration of the Commons Amendment to the Qualification of Women (County and Borough Councils) Bill, and the Report stage of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill. The noble Lord will see, I am sure, that we, as the Government, are not to blame for the absence of the Orders of the Day.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should be sorry to say that the Government are to blame for not circulating the Orders of the Day, but I think they are to blame for the hurry with which business is being transacted.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: There is only one Commons Amendment to this Bill—namely, in page 1, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words—
  "Shall not be elected as chairman of a county council or mayor of a borough,"
  and to insert the words—
  "If elected as chairman of a county council or mayor of a borough shall not by virtue of holding or having held that office be a justice of the peace."
  and I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist on your Amendment. The House may remember what occurred on the last occasion. I was in charge of the Bill, and I said that in my opinion the question was one of very small practical importance, and therefore I did not wish to attempt to force the House to vote one way or the other; but it seemed to me a pity, as you were giving power to women to sit on these bodies, to make this grudging limitation which could not have any practical effect, more particularly as I think it is certain that for some time, at any rate in the case of the larger local authorities, the possibility of a woman sitting as mayor is unlikely. I think it is not necessary to explain the effect of restoring the Bill to its original form. By its original form a woman can be mayor of a borough or chairman of a county council, but if she holds one of those positions she cannot be a justice of the peace; and the Amendment which was inserted by your Lordships on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, prevented her from occupying the position of mayor of a borough or chairman of a county council. When it went down to the House of Commons the Bill was put back into its original shape on the Motion of an independent Member, the House of Commons agreeing to that course without a division. I hope that, under the circumstances, your Lordships will not insist on your Amendment. The matter, as I have said, is not a very large one, and I do not think it is one on which it is worth while to engage in a contest with the other House of Parliament.
  Moved, "That this House does not insist upon its Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As I was the Member who moved the Amendment perhaps I may be allowed to say a

  1471
  word. I am not going to ask your Lordships to insist on your. Amendment, in fact, I advise your Lordships not to insist upon it. This House has no desire at all, on the contrary it has a great disinclination, to differ from the other House of Parliament, except on occasions when it is absolutely necessary for them to do so; and certainly I do not think this is one of the occasions on which your Lordships should differ. At the same time, in replacing the Bill in its original form I would desire to call your Lordships' attention to what the effect will be. A woman will in future be able to be elected to the position of chairman of a county council or mayor of a borough, but although she holds that office she will not be able to be a justice of the peace. If a woman is fit to be mayor of Liverpool, or Manchester, or Birmingham, I cannot conceive on what ground she is not fit to have a seat on the bench of justices. It seems to me to be a most manifest inconsistency. The Government think it very undesirable that the disability should be placed upon women which was placed by your Lordships' Amendment; yet in spite of that they propose to place this disability upon her. I am very much tempted to move to add at the end of the provision disqualifying women from sitting as justices, the words "unless placed by the Lord Chancellor thereupon." I am sure that your Lordships have the greatest confidence in the Lord Chancellor's appointments, and I am certain that if a woman were placed by him on the bench, this House would be of opinion, even if she were a suffragette, that the appointment had not been made without due consideration, and that it was a very proper appointment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My duties in regard to magistrates are sufficiently distressing already; and if I had to consider the merits of women for the purpose I am quite certain that I should be so overwhelmed with the task that I should be inclined to withdraw altogether from it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In deference to the noble and learned. Lord I will not propose the addition of those words.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Noble Lords opposite will remember that there is a Scottish Bill on similar lines to this passing through Parliament. It was introduced into this House at a very late period of the session, and was passed after some discussion, with Amendments, and sent to another place. I am sure I shall find myself in agreement with noble Lords opposite and with the great majority of your Lordships when I say that whatever is done on this particular point in regard to England ought to be done in the same way with regard to Scotland. The law ought not to be different in the two countries, and I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are able to say as yet in what form the other Bill is likely to be returned to your Lordships.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: In answer to the noble Lord, I have to say that a very similar Amendment has been made by the other House in the case of the Scottish Bill, and that I understand it will be considered by your Lordships on Monday.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, with regard to the Bill now on the Table I have only to say that I am very glad my noble friend Lord Camper-down does not ask the House to insist upon its Amendment. It is quite true that the Bill will leave matters in a somewhat illogical position, but the question does not seem to me to be one of really first-rate importance. It will only be in quite exceptional cases that a woman is likely to find herself elected chairman of a county council or mayor of a borough, and in such cases I think we might very well acquiesce in the idea of trying the experiment. The matter is not one in which it seems to me this House could very well involve itself in a controversy with the other House of Parliament.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Moved, "That the Commons Amend went be agreed to."—(The Earl of Crewe)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNexpressed regret that the Small Holdings Commissioners to be appointed under Clause 1 were not named in the Bill. As that had not been done, he would like to call attention to the very great importance of the appointments which were to be made. These Commissioners were to have very large powers indeed; they might, subject to the approval of the Board of Agriculture, override the county councils, and they would have very large powers with regard to property all over the Kingdom. It was unnecessary to say that therefore the character and knowledge of the gentlemen who were to be appointed would be a matter of extreme importance, and it would be most undesirable if any persons were appointed to this office who were in any way connected with the question either on one side or the other. It was not for him to make any suggestion, but he believed many noble Lords would feel—he said this without the slightest disrespect to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill—additional confidence in the appointments if they knew that the Lord Chancellor had been consulted before the appointments were made. Of course, he did not ask the noble Earl to say he would consult the Lord Chancellor; but he would feel that the appointments would be unexceptionable if the Lord Chancellor had been called into consultation.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONasked what steps would be taken to publish the names of those who were to be appointed as Commissioners. Would their names appear in the Gazette, or what means would the public have of ascertaining who were to be given these appointments?
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNalso wished to put a question to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. In another place there was a considerable amount of discussion as to the probable number of these Commissioners, but no light at all was vouchsafed by His Majesty's
  1474
  Government on that point. The Bill simply said "two or more." He supposed nobody could imagine that two Commissioners would suffice to accomplish all the work imposed on the Commissioners under the Bill. On the other hand, 200 Commissioners—that number had been suggested in another place—would be absurd. Could the noble Earl tell the House the view of the Board of Agriculture as to the number of Commissioners they would appoint?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, in answer to Lord Camperdown I may say that, although I do not pretend that I am going to shut my eyes altogether as to the side of politics to which the Commissioners may lean and when they are appointed find out, at the same time I desire it to be distinctly understood that my object in selecting these Commissioners will be to get the very best class of men it is possible to obtain. I have had some very good names already sent in, and I think there will be great competition for these places. They will be places worthy of men of understanding, of culture, and of honour, and I pledge myself to do all in my power to get the best possible men for the business. As to the next point, I recognise that any man who has the approbation of the Lord Chancellor has the approbation of the whole country, and though I do not pledge myself to go in every case to my noble and learned friend, yet I think he would certainly be a person to be consulted if he would be good enough to give me the benefit of his advice. I think we might leave the matter in that position. In reply to the question put to me by the noble Duke opposite, these Commissioners will be civil servants and therefore, naturally, their names will not be published in the Gazette. Then the noble Viscount asked me how many Commissioners would be appointed. I come from a commercial family, and in my early days my father tried to instil into me principles of economy. How far he succeeded I do not know; but it was from an economical point of view that I inserted in the Bill "two or more." I hope and believe that this measure will be a great boon to the

  1475
  country, its success depending a great deal, of course, on the Commissioners appointed. Though I have put down a small number to begin with, I can assure the House that I do not anticipate that the number of Commissioners will run into hundreds.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, it requires great diligence to extract from the explanation of the noble Earl anything bearing at all closely upon the question which has been put to him. It really is not material for us to be told that these appointments will be the subject of keen competition, or that they will be worthy of men of understanding, culture, and honour. That is all extremely interesting, but it does not answer our question. I gather that the noble Earl is not in a position to say anything more as to the number of these officials, and no doubt it would be difficult for him to pledge himself at this moment on that point. With regard to their tenure, he tells the House that they are to be civil servants, with, I understand, ordinary civil service tenure and pensionable.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Yes.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then I do not quite gather whether the public will have any opportunity of being made aware as to the individuals who may be selected. I cannot help thinking that in the interests of the noble Earl's Department it would be very desirable that some means should be taken of intimating to the public who these men of understanding, culture, and honour are who have been selected for these responsible duties. With regard to their selection, did I gather from him that they would be selected by his Department after consultation with the Lord Chancellor?
  EARL CARRINGTON: As the responsible Minister I shall make the selection. I am absolutely and entirely responsible.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then what was the reference to the Lord Chancellor in the noble Earl's statement?
  EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Ear opposite, Lord Camperdown, wished distinct pledge that none of these appointments should be made without the consent of the Lord Chancellor. I could not agree to that. I am absolutely and solely responsible.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Surely it is not seriously suggested that my sanction should be asked in regard to appointments made by a responsible colleague of my own in whom we have every confidence. Such a suggestion would be impracticable.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I would point out that I made no such suggestion.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Neither did I. I did not use the word "sanction." What I said was that we would feel more happy if we knew that the Lord Chancellor would be consulted.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHpointed out that civil service conditions would involve a limit of age and a competitive examination. Did the noble Earl mean to bring in those things?
  EARL CARRINGTON: No.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Then it is erroneous to suggest that this will be a civil service tenure.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNmoved to amend Subsection 1 of Clause 2 by inserting, after the words, "(1) The Commissioners, acting under the directions of the Board, shall ascertain the extent to which there is a demand for small holdings in the several counties," the words "or would be a demand if suitable land was available." He explained that this was a modification to some extent of an Amendment which their Lordships had agreed to in Committee on the Motion of Viscount Hill. The Bill originally provided, in the first two lines of Clause 2, that the Commissioners, acting under the directions of the Board, should ascertain the extent to which there was a demand, either actual or prospective, for small holdings. Their

  1477
  Lordships struck out the words "or prospective" because nobody understood what they meant, and they appeared to suggest a fishing inquiry to create a demand where no demand really existed. The Government resisted that Amendment, but he understood that they would be prepared to accept it if the words "or would be a demand if suitable land was available " were also inserted, so as to meet any case where such a demand had been prevented from occurring under the assumption that no land could be got.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 25, after the word 'counties,' to insert the words 'or would be a demand if suitable land was available.'"— (Viscount St. Aldwn.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: This Amendment, if I understand it rightly, really expresses what we mean by "prospective " in better language than I was able to command myself. I shall, therefore, be very pleased to accept it, subject, of course, to reconsideration if necessary.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNmoved to add, at the end of Subsection 1 of Clause 2, the words "and take such other steps as they think necessary." The subsection originally provided that the Commissioners might co-operate with "or employ " such other authorities, associations, and persons as they thought best qualified to assist them; but on the Motion of the Duke of Northumberland the words "or employ " were struck out in Committee. The clause as it now stood was not in harmony with the first subsection of Clause 23, which related to the case of allotments, because although the words "or employ " were left out the words in this subsection ran—
  "Co-operate with such authorities, associations, and persons as they think best to assist them, and take such other steps as they think necessary."
  The object of his Amendment was to add, at the end of Subsection 1 of Clause 2, words which would place the two subsections on the same footing. He understood that if these words were here in-
  1478
  serted His Majesty's Government were willing to agree to the Duke of Northumberland's Amendment leaving out the word "or employ," which Amendment they resisted in Committee.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 4, after the word 'then' to add the words 'and take such other steps as they think necessary.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: The facts as stated by the noble Viscount are quite correct, and I accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid their Lordships would remember that on Clause 3 he moved an Amendment in Committee with the object of insuring that the county councils should be consulted before the Orders were made; but he withdrew the Amendment and agreed to the substitution of other words on the understanding that he would consider them when he saw them in print and recur to the subject if necessary. After reading the words of his noble friend he desired to say that they appeared very fairly to carry out his (Lord Camperdown's) intention, and that he did not therefore propose to raise any further question with regard to it.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he raised in Committee the question of the vagueness of the word "localities" in Clause 3, and then suggested that the word "parish " might be inserted. Lord Fitzmaurice rather suggested that localities meant a group of parishes. He, therefore, now moved to leave out the word "localities" and to insert the words "parishes or group of parishes."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 5, to leave out the word 'localities' and to insert the words parishes or group of parishes.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. This is one of those dreadful difficulties of the English language. One word is too vague and the other is too precise. I should much prefer to leave the wording

  1479
  as it is, and I hope the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to amend Subsection (3) of Clause 4, so that it would read—
  " (3) The Board, after considering the objections and the Report of the person holding the inquiry (if any), may settle and confirm the scheme either without modification or subject to such modifications as the Board think fit, or may annul the scheme.":
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 5, after the word 'settle' to insert the words 'and confirm'; and in line 7 to leave out the words 'and may confirm.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNmoved to leave out Subsection (2) of Clause 5. He said that this was an Amendment of form rather than of substance. He had no wish to deprive the Board of Agriculture of the powers which it would possess under this subsection—namely, of directing its Commissioners to carry a scheme into effect which a county council had refused to carry into effect; but what he desired to do was to enable the question of the cost of carrying out such scheme to be raised in another place in order that it might be fully considered there. It had not yet been so considered; and of course, the matter was not within the competence of their Lordships' House. He would like, very shortly, to state the history of this matter, because it was of importance, and he thought quite justified the proposition he was about to make. In the first place, the Bill was introduced with this subsection giving those very great powers to the Board of Agriculture of overriding county councils and enabling the Board to impose upon the rates of the county the cost of the scheme which the county council had refused to undertake without any appeal and without any provision that the Treasury should or might share any part of the cost of that scheme. That was an intolerable proposition. It was the more intolerable because, as the Bill then stood, the limit of rating imposed by the existing law on
  1480
  the expenditure of county councils in this matter was abolished, and any amount of expenditure might have been imposed by the Board of Agriculture on the unfortunate ratepayers of the county against the wish of their elected representatives. When it was considered, this proposition was felt to be intolerable, even by supporters of His Majesty's Government. He would have thought that the veriest Cockney who had been foisted by a political association upon a rural council would not take long to discover that he could not do anything that would more insure his rejection at the next election than to allow or support a proposal that the Government should impose such expenditure upon the ratepayers of his county against their will. This feeling was entertained at any rate by many supporters of His Majesty's Government on the Grand Committee to which the Bill was referred, with the result that one of them moved the following Amendment—
  "Provided that if at the end of any year the county council can show to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the carrying into effect of any such scheme has involved a net loss to the council, the Board shall on demand, repay to the council a sum equivalent to two-thirds of such loss."
  That Amendment, in spite of the opposition of the Government, was only defeated by thirty-one votes to twenty-eight; and the opposition was such that the Minister in charge of the Bill was obliged himself to propose to the Committee the following clause—
  "If it appears to the Board that proceedings under this section have resulted or are likely to result in a loss, the Board may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay or undertake to pay out of the Small Holdings Account the whole or any part of that loss."
  Even that did not satisfy the Committee, and on the Motion of one of its members an Amendment was inserted making the provision much more operative, and it was carried against the Government by twenty-two votes to twenty-one. The Bill then went down to the House of Commons, where it was felt that the question of the expense in the case of loss had been by no means satisfactorily settled. The point was again raised, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to propose—again in order to meet the feelings of his own supporters—

  1481
  that a Treasury Minute should be issued in order to compel the Treasury to bear half of the loss which a county council might incur if it reasonably and properly carried out the scheme. That, again, did not satisfy the House of Commons, and there was a very general desire to raise the question on Report in order to compel the Treasury to bear the loss incurred by the Commissioners through carrying out a scheme which the county council had refused to carry out on account of the loss which they anticipated would result from it. But when the matter was raised, the Speaker ruled—no doubt quite properly—that it could not be considered on Report, and that the Bill must be recommitted; but owing to the hurry in which His Majesty's Government had been for the last month or so with regard to the legislation they desired to cram into the present session, the appeal for recommitment was refused. The case, therefore, remained in this way. The Bill as it stood did not carry out the proposed intentions of the Government in relieving county ratepayers of the cost to which he had referred. It enabled the Treasury to do what everyone felt ought to be done, but it did not impose upon them a burden which the Minister in charge of the Bill himself admitted should not be imposed on county councils in certain cases. He hoped he had shown sufficient reason for their Lordships making a formal Amendment in this clause in order that the House of Commons, with whom the financial powers rested, might have an opportunity of reconsidering the matter, and, if they chose, of inserting provisions to carry out what was declared to be the intention of the Government, and what he believed was the general wish of the House of Commons. Of course, if, after consideration, the House of Commons decided to leave the Bill as it was, they would not agree to their Lordships' Amendment, and when the Bill came back their Lordships would not dream of insisting upon the Amendment. He merely wished that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of properly considering a matter of finance, with which it was their province to deal.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, lines 14 to 21, to leave out Subsection (2)."—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I quite understand the object of the Amendment which the noble Viscount has moved, but he has admitted that the clause as it stands enables the Treasury to do what is right. After all, the situation is very much changed from what it first was. The Treasury now has the power to do what is right, and, of course, it will do what is right.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
  EARL CARRINGTON: Well, so long as the present Government remains in power. The noble Viscount has referred to his Amendment as a formal one. I would ask the House to consider what the Amendment is. It is to leave out Subsection (2), which reads—
  "If the county council fail so to fulfil their obligations, the Board shall by Order, direct the Commissioners to take such steps as may be necessary for carrying the scheme into effect, and upon such Order being made the Commissioners shall for the purpose have all the powers of a county council in relation to small holdings under the small Holdings Act, 1892, and this Act, and those Acts shall apply as if references to the Commissioners were substituted for references to a county council."
  That is the genesis of the Bill, and with every desire to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite it is absolutely impossible for us to accept this Amendment, as the omission of this subsection would in a sentence leave the whole thing in the air.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWthought the noble Earl had entirely missed the point. The sole object of the Amendment was to afford the House of Commons another opportunity of considering the matter. If the House of Commons did not wish to make any alteration they would return the clause as it now stood and their Lordships would not insist on their Amendment. There was no desire in moving the Amendment to deprive the Board of Agriculture of their powers under this subsection.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW,on behalf of the Earl of Jersey, moved to amend Subsection (2) of Clause 6 by omitting the words—
  "No land shall be acquired by a county council without their county except with the

  1483
  consent of the council of the county in which such land is situate. A county council may appeal against a refusal to give such consent to the Board of Agriculture, which shall have power to decide the question and terms of arrangement,"
  and inserting a new subsection to make clearer the object aimed at.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 11, to leave out from the word 'land' to the end of the clause, and to insert the following new subsection:—'(3) No land shall be acquired by a county council without their county except with the consent of the council of the county in which such land is situate, provided that any county council aggrieved by a refusal to give such consent may appeal to the Board, and the Board shall have power finally to determine all questions arising under this subsection and to settle the terms of arrangement (if any) between the county councils of their respective counties.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: This provision was very fully discussed when the noble Earl, Lord Jersey, moved in Committee the insertion of the words which it is now desired to omit in favour of a new subsection. I do not think I need take up the time of the House in re-stating our objections to it. After all, it is the same man in a different coat. It is an attempt to control county councils in the acquisition of land outside the area of their own county, and that is a proposition which we cannot under any circumstances accept. I gave the reasons why it was impossible to accept the Amendment in the old words, and the objections apply equally to the new words now proposed.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF PLYMOUTHexplained that the Amendment standing in his name to Clause 7 was consequential on that which was carried in Committee on on the Motion of Lord Dartmouth.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 18, after the first word `for' to insert the words 'selling or' and after the word 'and 'to insert the words 'sold or.'"—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I opposed Lord Dartmouth's Amendment with all my power but with very little result,
  1484
  and I shall therefore oppose a consequential. Amendment to that Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN,who moved in Committee the omission of Subsection (1) of Clause 20 and withdrew the Amendment on the understanding that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would confer with him on the matter, said the noble Earl had carried out this promise and he understood that in the opinion of the noble Earl there would be very grave objection to the omission of this subsection. He (Lord St. Aldwyn) had never in the least intended to limit the action of parish councils in the matter so far as the law conferred powers upon them. He understood that these councils had in many cases let allotments exceeding one acre and that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill thought there might be similar cases in future, and the Government had very strong feeling that it would not be desirable to interfere with those powers. On the other hand, he thought the Government were running considerable risk by the institution of authorities whose powers clashed in these matters, and it was for this reason that he moved in Committee to omit the subsection.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid it would still be impossible for us to accept such an Amendment.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that as the noble Earl was still of opinion that it would be impossible to accept the Amendment he would not raise the point again.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Amendment to Clause 25 fulfils a pledge that was given in Committee by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. It appears to be in every way preferable to the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the Duke of Richmond, and I hope the House will accept it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 12, line 27, after the word 'acquired' to insert the words 'and every such order shall, if so required by the owner of the land to be acquired, provide for the creation of such new easements as are reasonably necessary to secure the continued use and enjoyment by such owner and his tenants of all means

  1485
  of access, drainage, water supply, and other similar conveniencies theretofore used or enjoyed by them over the land to be acquired; provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in this subsection, no new easement created by or in pursuance of such order over land hired by a council shall continue beyond the determination of such hiring.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON,who had given notice of an Amendment to omit the present Subsection (4) of Clause 25—
  "(4) An order under this section may provide for the continuance of any existing easement or the creation of any new easement over the land authorised to be acquired "
  and to insert in its place the following new subsection—
  "(4) All land acquired under an order under this section shall be held by the council subject to all existing easements, and every such order shall provide for the creation of any new easements necessary to secure the continued use and enjoyment by the owners and occupiers of adjoining lands of all conveniences theretofore used and enjoyed over the land to be acquired, provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this subsection no new easement created by or in pursuance of such order over land hired by a council shall continue beyond the termination of such hiring,"
  said the words which the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture now proposed to insert on this point met his objections to the subsection as it stood, and in those circumstances he would not move his Amendment but would accept that of the Government.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWmoved to insert a new subsection in Clause 26, which he explained was intended to take the place, or, at any rate, a great deal of the place, of the Amendment moved by Lord St. Aldwyn in Committee. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack then pointed out to the noble Viscount that if the Amendment were carried there would still be nothing in the Bill to prevent a county council commencing proceedings de novo, and going through all the formalities required by the Bill in order compulsorily to hire the same land a second time. There was a strong feeling that where land was leased for so long a
  1486
  period as thirty-five years, the county council would, at the end of the first period of letting, have ascertained beyond doubt whether the letting of the land in small holdings was a success or not, and it would not, therefore, be any hardship upon the county council to ask them, if the landlord so required, to purchase the land. If the small holdings had been proved to be a success the county council ought, at as early a date as possible, to put itself in a position to sell the holdings to any of the small holders who wished to purchase; but that could not be done so long as the council only hired. He therefore had a double object in moving this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 14, line 5, after the word 'tenancy' to insert the following new subsection: '(2) Within three months after the receipt of the notice mentioned in Subsection (1) of this section, the landlord may, by notice in writing, require the council to purchase the land, and thereupon the council may purchase the land as if they had obtained an order authorising them to purchase the land, and had served upon the landlord a notice to treat in respect thereof, provided that, upon receipt by the council of such notice from the landlord, the notice to renew the tenancy shall cease to be effective, and if within six months thereafter the council do not purchase the land, such land shall not thereafter be authorised by any order under this Act to be hired compulsorily by the council which has failed or refused to purchase under the provisions of this subsection.'"—(The Earl of Onslow).
  EARL CARRINGTON: By this Amendment the noble Earl seeks to enact that within three months after the receipt of the notice the landlord might require the council to purchase the land, and if within six months thereafter the council did not purchase, such land should not thereafter be authorised by any order under this Bill to be hired compulsorily by the council which had failed or refused to do—what?—to purchase under the provisions of this subsection. Yet the whole Bill is framed on the supposition that the land ought to be hired and not bought. I would make an earnest appeal to the noble Earl not to press the Amendment. It would strike absolutely at the root of the Bill, and by it one of the fundamental principles of the measure would be entirely destroyed.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he attached great weight to the authority of Lord Onslow in this matter, but hoped that, in the circumstances, he would not press the Amendment.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHagreed that it would be impossible to press the Amendment at this stage with any hope of success, but he trusted that, if it was withdrawn, it would be clearly understood that many noble Lords on that side of the House believed that in by far the large majority of cases the real hope of success of small holdings was to give permanency of title, and that security could be given to the small holder by purchase and purchase alone.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD BARNARDmoved to amend Subsection (1) of Clause 29—
  "(1) No land shall be authorised by an order under this Act to be acquired compulsorily which at the date of the order forms part of any park, garden, pleasure ground, home farm, or is required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house, or is woodland or which at that date is the property of any local authority or has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking "—
  by omitting the words "authorised by an order under this Act to be," and inserting, after the word "compulsorily," the words "under this Act." He moved and explained the object of this Amendment in Committee and withdrew it on the understanding that His Majesty's Government would consider the point. The introduction of the words "authorised by an order under this Act" appeared to indicate the possibility or the intention of acquiring parks, gardens, pleasure grounds, etc., by some other means than the power under the Act. If not, there could be no objection to omitting the words.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 15, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words 'authorised by an order under this Act to be'; and in line 28, after the word 'compulsorily' to insert the words under this Act.'"—(Lord Barnard.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I said in Committee that I would examine the
  1488
  subsection and see whether I could detect any purpose such as the noble Lord appeared to apprehend, but I remain of the same opinion. It really does not matter whether the words are in or not. They certainly could not create other powers of taking, and I do not think they indicate other powers of taking.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNreminded the House that in Committee the word "woodland" was added to the descriptions of land which were not to be taken. Objection was raised at the time by several noble Lords, including the Lord Chancellor, on the ground that there might be certain small plantations comprised within the area to be taken, and which, by his Amendment, it would not be possible to take. He had since considered the matter, and now proposed to insert, after the word "woodland," the words "not wholly surrounded by land acquired by a council under this Act," which would save such cases as those mentioned by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 15, line 31, after the first 'or' to insert the word `which,' and after the word 'woodland' to insert the words 'not wholly surrounded by land acquired by a council under this Act.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD BARNARDsaid that even where there were small plantations on farms they were never let with the farm, and the landlord had access to them though the rest of the farm was let to an agricultural tenant. He did not know what county councils proposed to do with woodlands—whether they were going to have shooting parties or go in for forestry. He preferred the words as they were.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped the Amendment would be accepted. A landlord would have no object in retaining woodland in such a case.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to accept the Amendment provisionally.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Certainly; but I would point out that the Amendment is in the noble Earl's favour.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF VERULAMmoved to add, at the end of Subsection (1) the words, "or includes the site of any monument or place of historical or archaeological interest." He thought it would be agreed that these valuable objects should be preserved to the nation.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 15, line 34, after the word 'undertaking,' to insert the words 'or includes the site of any monument or place of historical or archaeological interest.'"—(The Earl of Verulam.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: It would be a grievous calamity if any such thing as the noble Earl fears should happen, but I think your Lordships can be certain that the Board of Agriculture would never make an order in these circumstances. Many things must be done before an order can be made, and any representation on this ground would certainly be favourably considered. I think it would be quite impossible for such a catastrophe as that anticipated to occur.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhoped the noble Earl would reconsider his decision and accept the Amendment. He was sure there was no Member of their Lordships' House who did not take a deep interest in the great historic remains in question, round which more than usually prominent interest had centred owing to the entertainments that had taken place recently in all parts of the country illustrating the various scenes in English history. These sites and monuments were of enormous interest to historians, and the Government would be doing a graceful thing if they accepted the Amendment.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I sympathise entirely with the object in view and I do not think any danger need be feared. But if it is the wish of noble Lords opposite that these words should be inserted, I gladly accept them.
  1490
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HYLTONmoved to amend Clause 32 by deleting the words "to the satisfaction of the Board," so that it would read "Where land has been hired by a council compulsorily under this Act or the Allotments Acts, and the land or any part thereof at any time during the tenancy thereof by the council is shown to be required by the landlord to be used for building, etc."—and reducing the period of notice from twelve months to six. The clause, if passed in its present form, would, he said, result in great loss and injury to landowners. There was a great deal of land which had at any given moment only a prospective building value and was let on an agricultural tenure, often at a low rent, in consideration of a clause giving power of resumption on the part of the landlord for purposes other than agriculture. These and similar lands were very likely, when this Bill became law, to be taken for the purpose of small holdings, and if there was great delay under the Act, as there would be unless his Amendment was accepted, in obtaining repossession on the part of the landlord for legitimate purposes of development, the landlord would be a heavy sufferer. He happened to have been for some years a trustee of a large charity, of which several Members of their Lordships' House were also trustees. That charity had very large property in counties in England, and the trustees in old days were in the habit of meeting only twice a year. A well-known firm of agents, who managed the business of the trustees, told him, before this Bill was on the tapis at all, that in those days it was almost impossible to get any development of the estates for building because prospective purchasers declined to wait six months for the trustees to meet, and so they passed on to the next owner. For the last few years the trustees had adopted a new scheme and met much more frequently, and there had since been a great difference in the development of the estates. This showed the advantage of being able quickly to resume possession of land. According to the clause as it stood in the Bill, the landlord

  1491
  would have to prove to the satisfaction of the Board that he wanted to resume the land for either of the purposes set forth. They all knew the long delays that ensued in dealing with a Government Department, and he did not think the officials of the Board of Agriculture, with the enormous amount of work which would certainly be thrown upon them under this Bill, were likely to prove less dilatory. Therefore, the practical result of passing Clause 32 in its present form would be that the power of resumption for any purpose of development would become a dead letter. This would not only be hard On the owner, but also against public interest, as it would prevent necessary development. When a person succeeded to land called prospective building land, but which was at present only agricultural land, the Inland Revenue put on an additional charge in respect of prospective building value; but if this clause remained as now, the landlord would be paving upon the basis of its being prospective building land, whereas it would remain agricultural land for ever. He would move, first, the omission of the words "to the satisfaction of the Board."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 16, line 40, to leave out the words 'to the satisfaction of the Board.'"—(Lord Hylton.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Lord moves to omit the words "to the satisfaction of the Board." Therefore the clause would read—
  "Where land has been hired by a council compulsorily under this Act or the Allotments Acts and the land, or any part thereof, at any time during the tenancy thereof by the council is shown to be required by the landlord."
  But to whom is it to be shown?
  LORD HYLTONsaid he recognised that the Amendment as it stood was rather awkwardly worded, but he would like to get some satisfaction on the point.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I suppose it would have to be shown to the satisfaction of a Court of Law. Here my commercial instincts again come in, for this idea would be certain to introduce litigation and expense, to avoid which is the great object of the Bill. We want to
  1492
  make the taking of land and all the consequent arrangements as straightforward and cheap as possible, and I still think that the Board of Agriculture would be the proper tribunal. We wish, of course, to safeguard in every way the rights of landlords; that is only proper. But I cannot see where the terrible delay which the noble Lord referred to is to arise. The noble Lord brought in the Inland Revenue. I cannot speak for that Department, but I can speak for the Board of Agriculture, and I can honestly say that I do not believe there is a lame duck in the whole of that office. They are all men who know their business and desire to transact it conscientiously and efficiently and with celerity, and I do not think there is any legitimate ground for the noble Lord's fears on this head. I therefore hope he will leave the words as they stand.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I quite understand the wish of my noble friend Lord Hylton that it should not be left to the entirely unfettered discretion of the Board to decide whether land ought not to be resumed for a particular purpose, but I venture to think that what he desires is provided for in the Amendment which stands in Lord St. Aldwyn's name immediately below this Amendment on the Paper, and I would suggest that he might withdraw his Amendment and allow us to consider the matter on Lord St. Aldwyn's Amendment.
  VISCOUNT HYLTONgladly complied with the noble Marquess's request.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD HYLTONthen moved to amend the clause so that a landlord who required his land for building, mining, or other industrial purposes, could resume possession on giving the local authority six months previous notice in writing, and not twelve months as in the clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 17, line 5, to leave out the word 'twelve,' and to insert the word 'six.'"—(Lord Hylton.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am very sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. Six months would be most

  1493
  inconvenient to the small holder. An agricultural tenant must have twelve months to harvest his crops.
  LORD CLINTONhoped the noble Earl would reconsider the matter. The noble Earl had stated that the Government wished to safeguard in every way the rights of landlords, but if landlords could not resume possession without giving twelve months notice they would be in a much worse position than under ordinary leases.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid that under the clause as it stood a landlord might have to wait in some cases two years before he could resume possession. He thought that would be a great injustice.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsympathised with the view of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. He thought there would be considerable difficulties in resumption of the land with less than twelve months notice. Perhaps the insertion of the words "except in special circumstances " might be considered. He did not know whether that would meet Lord Hylton's point.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I will consider that suggestion, but I cannot give any pledge.
  LORD HYLTONargued that there would be no hardship to the tenant if his Amendment were carried, as compensation would, of course, be given. In letting this kind of land he invariably inserted a clause empowering resumption at three months notice, but always paid compensation to the agricultural tenant on resuming. The noble Earl seemed unaware of the great extent to which shorter periods than six months were inserted in leases all over the country.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I cannot give way on this point. I think it would be very unreasonable to give only six months notice.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNmoved to insert in the clause the new subsection referred to by Lord Lansdowne, and
  1494
  which he understood the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was prepared to accept.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 17, line 10, after the word 'Board,' to insert the following subsection: 'Where the land has been hired compulsorily by the Commissioners acting in default of a county council, any quesion as to the right of the landlord to resume possession of the land or any part thereof under this section shall be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD KENYONmoved an Amendment in Clause 38 with the object of limiting the power of county councils to employ any co-operative society as agents for promoting small holdings or allotments. He thought "any society " was too wide; it might include political societies. He therefore moved the insertion of the words "such society as is mentioned in Subsection (4) of this section," which would exclude the possibility of political societies being employed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 19, line 37, to leave out the words 'any society,' and to insert the words 'any such society as is mentioned in Subsection (4) of this section.'"—(Lord Kenyon.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: There is no earthly desire on the part of the Government to employ any political society. This is a great national object, and I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity of pointing that out. I gladly accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to amend Subsection (2) of Clause 38—
  "(2) The county council, with the consent of, and subject to regulations made by, the Local Government Board, may for the purpose of assisting a society give guarantees or make grants or advances to the society, etc.—
  by omitting the words "give guarantee or," and inserting other words. The noble Earl said: The object of this

  1495
  Amendment is to meet the point raised in Committee by Lord Zouche of Haryngworth. We guarantee the advances that are made, but not the solvency of the society. I hope the House will accept the Amendment to omit the words "give guarantees or," and to insert, after the second "society," the words "or guarantee advances made to the society."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 19, line 41, to leave out the words 'give guarantees or,' and in page 20, line 1, after the word 'society' to insert the words 'or guarantee advances made to the society.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ROBERTSONmoved to amend Subsection (1) of Clause 42—
  "(1) All questions which under this Act are referred to arbitration shall, unless otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be determined by a single arbitrator in accordance with the Argricultural Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1900."
  by inserting after the second "Act " the words "and subject to the provisions of Subsection (2) of this section." He stated that he withdrew this Amendment in Committee on the assurance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the matter should be further considered. He thought it would be as well again to explain his proposal. The general provision in Clause 42 was that where there was a case of arbitration the arbitration should take place under the Agricultural Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1906, and the practical effect of that was that the arbitrator was nominated by the Board of Agriculture. But in Subsection 2 of the clause this was departed from, for the reason that the Board of Agriculture acting in the place of a defaulting county council would be one of the parties to the transaction. The courage of the drafts-man failed him at this point, for he saw that it would be impossible to allow the Board of Agriculture to nominate the arbitrator that was to decide in their own cause. But that argument equally applied to the first subsection, when it was remembered that the Commissioners might be a party, and the Commissioners
  1496
  were really the noble Earl at the head of the Department multiplied by two or three, or possibly 200. In these circumstances it seemed to him that fair play demanded that the nomination of the arbitrator should be taken out of the hands of the Board of Agriculture where the Commissioners were directly involved just as much as where the Board of Agriculture were directly involved. His proposal, in a word, was that in either case the parties,might be allowed to agree upon an arbitrator in the first instance, or, if they did not agree, that the arbitrator should be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 21, line 2, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and subject to the provisions of Subsection (2) of this section.'"—(Lord Robertson.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment has been considered. since the Committee Stage in accordance with the promise which I then gave to the noble and learned Lord. There can be no question that the matters which the noble and learned Lord has in view are covered without the necessity of adopting the Amendment. But there are points which are not covered, as in the case of arbitrations under the Agricultural Holdings Acts for determining the questions of compensation between the Board and the tenant. Under the Bill as it stands the ordinary arbitrators under the Agricultural Holdings Acts would be the persons who would have to determine them. We think that these matters ought to be settled under the Agricultural Holdings Acts as similar questions hitherto have been. Section 27 of the Patents Act enables the Crown to use patents, and the Treasury has to determine the amount of compensation. Confidence is always shown in the public Departments in matters of this kind, and I understand that those who are responsible for the Bill attach importance to maintaining this clause as it stands. If the noble and learned Lord presses his Amendment and the House desire that it should be inserted, it will have to come up for consideration elsewhere; but I am afraid the Government in another place would not be likely to assent to it.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that if he rightly understood the explanation of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, the only arbitrations which Lord Robertson sought to include which would not be so included would be arbitrations as between landlord and tenant, the county council in this case being the landlord and the tenant being the ordinary agricultural tenant under the Agricultural Holdings Acts as they existed apart from this Bill. He did not imagine that the provisions of the Bill with regard to arbitration or valuation were ever intended to affect the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts as between landlord and tenant, and he did not quite appreciate the desire of Lord Robertson to include them.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  LORD KENYONmoved an Amendment in Clause 45 providing that any notice required by the Bill to be served or given might be sent by "registered " post.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 22, line 15, after the word 'by,' to insert the word 'registered.'"
  EARL CARRINGTON: I accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BARNARDcalled attention to the fact that Subsection (5), of Clause 45, had nothing whatever to do with the other part of the clause, and suggested that it should be set out as a separate clause.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNagreed that the subsection in question should appear in the Bill as a separate clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite concur. That is a matter which can be put right at the Table, and does not require a Motion.
  LORD BARNARDmoved to leave out the first paragraph of Part II. of the First Schedule, which ran—
  "(1) The Board shall make regulations for the purpose of carrying the order into effect and of protecting the council and the persons in-
  1498
  terested in the land, and the order shall incorporate such regulations, together with such provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts and of Section 77 to 85 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as may, subject to the prescribed adaptations, appear to the Board necessary or expedient for that purpose."
  The Schedule itself had to be read with Subsection (2) of Clause 25, which provided that where a council proposed to hire land compulsorily, the council might submit to the Board an order for the compulsory hiring of the land, and the provisions of Part of the First Schedule should apply to the order, with the modifications set out in Part II. of that Schedule. If their Lordships would refer to the first paragraph of Part I. of the First Schedule they would see that it was, with the exception of verbal alterations, practically the same as the one which he was now moving to delete, but it did not give the same wide discretion to the Board. It incorporated regulations made by the Board, and he submitted that the paragraph which he proposed to omit was not needed at all. All that was necessary was provided for by Paragraph 1 of Part I., and it did not contain the objectionable words "appear to the Board necessary or expedient for that purpose." Perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would be able to reassure the House on this point. He expressed some misgivings as to the great powers which were given in the measure to a Government Department, and said they must not overlook the fact that Government Departments sometimes made use of their administrative powers in a manner that was never contemplated, as had been illustrated recently in the case of the Education Department. He expressed the hope that the House would have some reassurance that the Board did not intend to make any further alterations in the Lands Clauses Acts in these particular cases than were absolutely necessary to meet the circumstances of the case.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the first Schedule, page 24, lines 23 to 29, leave out paragraph (1)."—(Lord Barnard.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: A similar question was raised in the Committee Stage, and I am able to reassure the noble Lord. As a matter

  1499
  of fact, he has made a general and also a particular criticism. In his general criticism the noble Lord complained of the tendency in modern legislation for Departments to frame by-laws and regulations. That tendency has no doubt been very common, for reasons into which I do not enter. The reason why it is provided that adaptations may be prescribed is that the Lands Clauses Acts are not framed for the purpose of dealing with compulsory hiring, but with compulsory purchase. If, therefore, you apply the Acts to hiring, it is needful to make a certain adaptation, and the words here criticised are intended to enable the Board to make these adaptations. The same words have been employed before for a similar purpose in regard to the same Acts, and I would refer my noble friend to Section 10, Subsection (8), of the Local Government Act of 1894. There is really no other method of dealing with the question. You must either enumerate or schedule the adaptations, or adopt the more flexible method of delegating power to the Government Department concerned.
  LORD ROBERTSONsaid that the explanation of the noble and learned Lord was sufficient for the purposes of the present occasion, and his noble friend had rendered a service by calling attention to the subject. The Lord Chancellor had produced what was, he thought, a perfectly applicable precedent, but he was bound to say that he thought it would be for the consideration of Parliament afterwards whether that was a precedent that ought to be carried further. He could not advise his noble friend, however, to do more than enter his protest.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved an Amendment providing, in the schedule relating to the provisions as to the compulsory hiring of land by a council,that the order authorising the land to be hired compulsorily should not, "except with the consent of the landlord," confer on the council any right to fell or cut timber or trees, etc. The noble Earl said: This Amendment was moved in Committee by Lord Camperdown and I
  1500
  accepted it, but it is not in the Bill as it stands. I, therefore, move to insert the words "except with the consent of the landlord."
  Amendment moved—
  "In the first Schedule, page 25, line 2, after the word 'not' to insert the words 'except with the consent of the landlord.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the noble Earl was not correct in stating that the Amendment to insert the words was carried in Committee. He moved their insertion, but withdrew the Amendment on the understanding that the words would be considered by the Government.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid a difficulty arose in connection with Subsection (2) of Part II. which provided that—
  " The order authorising the land to be hired compulsorily shall determine the terms and conditions of the hiring other than the rent, and in particular shall provide for the insertion in the lease of covenants by the council to insure to pay all taxes, rates, and charges usually borne by tenants to cultivate the land in a proper manner and (unless otherwise agreed) to keep the buildings and premises demised in repair and to pay to the landlord at the determination of the tenancy, on the council quitting the land, compensation for any depreciation of the land,"
  and so on. The whole of the latter part of that portion of the subsection which he had read appeared to be governed by the words "unless otherwise agreed." He did not think that was intended. In his opinion, the words "unless otherwise agreed " were only intended to apply to the keeping of the buildings and premises demised in repair. He proposed to amend the subsection so that it would read—
  "…shall provide for the insertion in the lease of covenants by the council to cultivate the land in a proper manner and to pay to the landlord at the determination of the tenancy on the council quitting the land, compensation for any depreciation of the land by reason of any failure by the council, or any person deriving title under them, to observe such covenants or by reason of any user of the land by the council or such person as aforesaid,"
  and then would come in the words—
  "and (unless otherwise agreed) to pay all taxes, rates, and charges usually borne be

  1501
  tenants, to insure the buildings and keep thy buildings and premises demised in repair,"
  leaving the last-named matters, which were not so important as the others, and which might be fairly agreed upon, to be matters of agreement.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 24, line 33, to omit the words 'to insure to pay all taxes, rates, and charges usually borne by the tenant.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 24, line 34, to omit the words '(unless otherwise agreed) to keep the buildings in repair and.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 24, line 40, after the word aforesaid, to insert the words 'and (unless otherwise agreed) to pay all taxes, rates, and chargee usually borne by tenants, to insure the buildings and keep the buildings and premises demised in repair.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNmoved an Amendment providing that the Order should confer no right to take, sell, or carry away any minerals, gravel, sand, or clay, except so far as may be necessary to adapt the land for small holdings or allotments, and "for which proper compensation shall be paid to the landlord."
  Amendment moved—
  "In the first Schedule, page 25, line 6, after the word 'allotments' to insert the words 'for which proper compensation shall be paid to the landlord.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am prepared to agree to the Amendment if the noble Viscount will substitute the words "and I except upon such terms as to payment to the landlord of the value of the minerals, etc., as shall be inserted in the Order."
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that this would leave it open to the Board of Agriculture not to insert in the Order any provision on the matter, and that
  1502
  clearly would not be right. Perhaps the noble Earl would accept the Amendment now, subject to further consideration.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CLINTONmoved to leave out Subsection (6) of the first Schedule This was, he said, purely consequential upon the Amendment made in Committee by which arbitration was substituted for valuation. Now that valuation no longer appeared in the Schedule, he thought this subsection unnecessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the first Schedule, page 25, line 34 to leave out Subsection (6)."—(Lord Clinton.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is it the case that all reference to valuation has disappeared? I should have thought that this subsection was very useful for those cases of valuation which still remain provided for in the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord will let this matter stand over till the Third Reading, and we will consider whether the Amendment is purely consequential.
  LORD CLINTONsaid that, as he understood the Third Reading was to be taken immediately, he would let his Amendment go to the Vote.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended),
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Earl Carrington.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, before the Third Reading is tarried, I desire to express the feeling which I think is prevalent among noble Lords who sit round me of deep regret that so important a Bill should have come to the House in the last days of August. The Bill has quite lately been described by the Prime Minister as the most ambitious and greatest change in the agricultural system that any country has put forward in recent years. That description seems to me, in some respects,

  1503
  inflated. I agree that the Bill is ambitious, because it contains many new principles hitherto unknown to our legislation. But that it will effect a transformation of the agricultural system of the country I very greatly doubt. If the Bill does merit the description of the Prime Minister, is it not—I was going to say "outrageous " that it should not come under the notice of the House until the very last expiring days of the session? I press that point, because I shall always insist that this House has very special qualifications for dealing with measures concerning the agricultural interests of the country. When we are dealing with Bills affecting legal questions, we pay the greatest attention to the opinion of the great lawyers who sit in the House. If we deal with military and naval questions, we are glad to be guided to some extent by Members of those great services. Surely, then, in this House, where so large a number of its Members have an unrivalled acquaintance with the practical side of agriculture, when agricultural legislation is proposed, it is reasonable that we should have the fullest opportunity of considering it. In those circumstances, it is very hard that not only should the Bill come to us in the last days of the session, but that we should be warned by the Prime Minister that we are not expected to touch a single line of its more important provisions. I am not going, at this moment, to review the Bill. I only wish to say for myself that I am one of those who ungrudgingly accept the policy of extending small holdings; and I am quite ready, though perhaps not quite so ungrudgingly, to admit that compulsory powers should be resorted to for this purpose. Not that I believe there is any great need for them. I am under the impression that without compulsory powers you could have obtained almost all that was necessary. But I feel that there may be here and there cases in which such powers are useful, and also that unless such powers are included in the Bill it will always be open to those who criticise the class which is so largely represented in this House to say that, if the policy of the country in regard to small holdings has miscarried, it has been due to the obstruction of interested persons belonging to that class.
  1504
  Of the Bill itself I will only say that to my mind it has two serious blots. The first is the subordination of the local authorities to the central Department at Whitehall. It is quite true that those authorities are not entirely ignored in this Bill, as they were in the Scottish Land Bill, but throughout they are put in the background and the officials of the Board of Agriculture are put in the forefront. Hitherto, where the interference of a central Department has been admitted, it has been admitted because the local authority failed to perform its duties. As I read the Bill, the roles of the Commissioners and the local authorities are inverted. The Commissioners are given the duty of putting pressure on the local authorities before the local authorities themselves have had a full opportunity of dealing with the question. The other blot is the unfairness of the terms under which owners of land are to be compelled to hire it. The lessor is to be compelled to grant a lease which is renewable for ever, on terms axed for him by others, under conditions from which he cannot extricate himself, but from which the lessee can extricate himself at recurrent intervals. That is a thoroughly one-sided bargain.
  I must add that on this side of the House we are far from satisfied with the manner in which the discussion of the measure has been conducted by noble Lords opposite. Throughout these debates—I hope the noble Earl will permit me to say so—the President of the Board of Agriculture has not as a rule addressed himself very closely to the arguments put forward from these Benches, but has been content to appeal to his own sincerity, which none of us question, and to the uprightness and high character of the officials to whom the administration of the Act is to be entrusted. That is, to my mind, not quite enough. But I should not have pressed that point if it had not been that I wished to say this—that I take the statements of the noble Earl seriously and as having been made in perfect good faith. We shall, however, watch the manner in which the Act is administered; and we shall ask ourselves, as time goes on, whether it is being administered in the considerate, scrupulous,

  1505
  and accurate manner which the noble Earl leads us to expect. If it is to be so administered, may I suggest that some little alteration in the point of view of the noble Earl might not be undesirable, because throughout the debates he has constantly used language which did not seem to be very conducive to such a good understanding as I hope will prevail in regard to the administration of the Act. The noble Earl has used phrases of this kind—"The agricultural labourers of this country live in fear of confiscation of what belongs to them "; "they exist in a state of degradation"; "under this Bill, for the first time, they would be able to walk upright," and so forth. Language of that kind, even on a political platform, is scarcely excusable. If the noble Earl desires his Act to be a success, he and those who will take their instructions from him should endeavour to deal with all the classes which the Act will affect, whether owners of land, farmers, or labourers, in that just and considerate spirit which he has told us, again and again, we might expect from him and his officials.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the noble Marquess opposite stated, not long ago, that his ideal of a prosperous agricultural community was one in which you had large farms of from 300 to 400 acres, smaller farms of from 40 to 100 acres, and also small holders. My Lords, we have that ideal in North Yorkshire—we have those various classes on the land there. They have lived with their landlords in perfect harmony and peace. The relations between the various classes have been most happy, and I regret that there should be any necessity for such a Bill as this. What takes place in North Yorkshire can take place anywhere else in the country. You have only to imitate, and if any noble Lord comes down to North Yorkshire he will, I think, come to the same opinion—that there could not be a better state of things than exists in this country. Then where is the necessity for this Bill? Why bring in these compulsory powers? Nobody that I know of has ever refused to give small holdings. Nobody has refused allotments. I have given small holdings and allotments myself. We
  1506
  have plenty of cow-keepers and other men ready, as the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) has said, after a life of industry and thrift, to go up into higher stations and to become first small holders and then small farmers. What, then, is the necessity for this Bill? The fact is that this Bill in principle is one that is antagonistic to the general feeling of the country. If there is one thing which is characteristic of Englishmen more than another, it is their love of independence and their self-reliance in managing their own affairs. This Bill violates that principle. The agricultural interest does not want to be governed by a Government Department. We do not want our affairs interfered with by a bureaucracy, as I must call it, and in this way the Bill interrupts, in my humble opinion, the general happy state of the agricultural interest.
  Then, again, there is another principle to which the noble Marquess has just alluded—the principle of over-riding the county councils, popularly elected bodies, by a Government official. What can be more prejudicial to the interests of local government? It is surprising that such a principle should be brought forward by the present Government. What happened last year on the Education Bill? We were told that we must take popular control. Fault was found with the system of management of schools, because they were not under sufficient popular control. Popular control was all very well with regard to that, but why are we to have this popular control—this body elected by a Liberal suffrage—overruled by a public department? Why violate that system of popular control which last year we were told was the great principle and policy of the Liberal Party? I protest therefore against this principle. I thank your Lordships for listening to me for so long, and I will not detain you further at this late hour. I agree with the noble Marquess that it is most melancholy, to say the least of it, that this important Bill, affecting the rights of property and the interests of the landed proprietors of this country, should be brought in at the very fag-end of the session, and hurried through all its stages within two Sundays. I think that is not the way in which we ought to legislate, or to administer the

  1507
  affairs of the country. This is a Bill against which I protest as being an unfair and unnecessary attack upon the rights and privileges of the landed interests of this country.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF RIPON): My Lords, I am not at all surprised by the opening remarks of my noble friend the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne). I quite admit this is a late period of the year for the consideration of a Bill of this kind. I have had often to say lately, as well as in former times, that I have very little belief in the possibility of remedying difficulties of this kind. I hope that it may be found in future sessions more easy to do so than it has been in this session, but I very much doubt, from my experience of Governments of both Parties, whether it will be easy so to arrange the business of the session as that there may not be a considerable overcrowding of measures during the last few weeks that the session lasts. I am perfectly willing to apologise to the House and to my noble friend for the circumstances under which this Bill has arrived here, but I am bound also to say that it appears to me that it has received a great deal of very careful and intelligent—if I may be permitted to use the word—consideration from your Lordships' House, and that you have shown that great knowledge of questions relating to the land which my noble friend has claimed for you. But, my noble friend has no right to claim that the Members of this House represent the great agricultural population, or the agricultural needs of this country, except in one direction. They represent a certain class deeply interested in the, agricultural arrangements of the country, but they represent one class only, and therefore. I think they can claim no right to have exclusive authority over questions of this kind.
  My noble friend consents to the Third Reading of the Bill, and he even went so far as to say that he wished success to the system which is going to be established under it. I have not the least doubt that my noble friend is perfectly sincere in that expression of his desire for the successful and widespread establishment of small
  1508
  holdings throughout the country, and I only hope that when the Bill has become law, as I trust it will, it will receive the practical support—locally as well as generally—of my noble friend opposite, and of his friends. I do not think the best way of making this Bill a success is to decry it just at the hour of its birth, but I have no doubt that it will be taken up and received with encouragement by those who sit opposite to us on this occasion.
  A great deal has been said by my noble friend to-night, and a great deal has been said also in the course of these discussions, with respect to the interference with county councils and other local bodies, and my noble friend particularly seemed to think that the Commissioners to be appointed under this Bill would make themselves exceedingly troublesome to county councils, and take every possible opportunity of interfering with them. The first duty of those Commissioners, as I understand it, will be to inquire into and ascertain the state of things which exists, and where county councils have been doing their utmost to make use of the Acts which already are in existence, and of that Act of 1892 which has been in existence for fifteen years, I do not think they will be much troubled by these Commissioners; and I am quite sure that my noble friend behind me (Earl Carrington) will take care that these Commissioners, being his officers, and he being responsible to Parliament for their action, shall not unnecessarily interfere with local bodies who are doing their duty. But, when we recollect that, as I have just said, it is fifteen years since the Act of 1892 was passed, and when we look at the very small and limited results that that Act has hitherto produced, and when we see how impressed the late Government was by that fact—because they established a Departmental Committee to inquire into the whole subject—I think your Lordships cannot be surprised that His Majesty's Government, taking a deep interest in this subject, believing that the extension of small holdings is a very important matter, should have felt it their duty to pass a Bill which gives sufficient powers to secure that the delay which has taken place between 1892 and the present time should not be continued.

  1509
  When we hear these complaints about steps which may be taken to require county councils to discharge the functions entrusted to them by Parliament, I would venture to remind your Lordships, as you have been reminded before in the course of these discussions, that these powers are not novel, that powers of this kind have been entrusted to public Departments in dealing with great representative local bodies before now, and that we are not in fact assuming any undue central authority over local bodies of this kind. Our object is this. We believe that it will be a very valuable improvement of the agricultural organisation of the country if we are by this measure, or by any other measures, enabled to retain upon the land any considerable number of those who are now flowing year by year from the land into the large towns. I confess that like my right hon. friend who had charge of the Bill in the House of Commons, I do not myself expect that the result of this measure will be to bring back to the land many of those who have left it, but what I do believe is that it may have the effect—I hope it will have the effect—of retaining upon the land men who might otherwise be inclined to pass into the great towns. That I believe to be a great public and national object. I believe it to be an object fully justifying the large powers—for large powers I admit them to be—which are taken in this Bill for the purpose of securing the objects which it has in view. Your Lordships may not like those powers. We all of us like to have the unfettered management of our own affairs. I sympathise, and sympathise greatly, with the feelings of many noble Lords opposite, but what I do feel is this—that there is here before us a sufficient national object to justify us in calling upon the landlords of this country to lay aside many of their own personal feelings, as I believe they will do, for the purpose of bringing about this great object that we have in view.
  My noble friend seemed to doubt—I do not exactly know why he should have doubted, but he seemed to doubt—that my noble friend behind me, the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, would sincerely
  1510
  carry out the promises which he had made in this House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No—on the contrary, I said I did not question my noble friend's sincerity.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: At any rate, what the noble Lord did was to give broad hints to my noble friend as to how he should carry out his undertakings. I have no doubt—your Lordships have no doubt—that my noble friend behind me will do that which he has told your Lordships he intends to do, and will administer this Bill, if it becomes law, in the spirit which he has told you he intends to be guided by. My noble friend will no doubt have a great and serious responsibility. The inauguration of a new system of this kind must always put a very serious responsibility upon any Minister who is charged with it. But I have no doubt that my noble friend will remember in administering this new law that, while his first duty and his first object will be to see that the new Act is successful in carrying out the operations which it is intended to effect, he is charged with the interests of the three great divisions of the people who dwell on the land—the labouring classes, the farmers, and the landlords. And I would wish to express one opinion which I entertain upon this subject—that of those three classes, the one that will make the largest call upon my noble friend behind me for his consideration is the farming class.
  I believe that I have answered the remarks which fell from my noble friend. I thank him for the tone of the observations which he has made, and I earnestly believe that this measure will be one which will improve the condition of the great mass of the people in the rural districts, and if it be successful in that great object, it will be a cause of pride to all those who had a hand in carrying it out.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Galway succeeded in inducing your Lordships to omit what was then the second sub-section of Clause 20, which enabled parish councils to build dwelling houses. In doing so, I think my noble friend forgot that the effect of the Amendment which he carried would be to abolish the powers given by the Act of 1894 to parish councils to erect on allotments stables, cow-houses, and barns, and I wish to move an Amendment in the Bill to make it clear that those provisions will still remain in force.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed, as amended. (No. 212.)

CABS AND STAGE CARRIAGES (LONDON) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I beg leave to move that this Bill be read a second time, but as I understand that there will be no opportunity to-day of going beyond the Second Reading, I will not venture to detain your Lordships very long. I am told there will be Amendments moved to one clause in this Bill, and although I should like to say something upon that clause in a few minutes, I shall not even on that question presume to detain you at any length. But I should like to point out with regard to this Bill that the first clause is one which is intended to relieve the Home Secretary of certain restrictions which he is under at the present moment with regard to taximeters. Your Lordships will readily understand that legislation passed a good many years ago does not easily lend itself to modern forms of locomotion, and that therefore the Home Secretary is in considerable difficulty at the present time in dealing with these taximeters, and this clause is intended to make his position easier and simpler in the matter.
  Clause 3 is required in order that he may have powers over stage carriages
  1512
  which come from some place beyond London. Owing to some—I think I may say—defect in drafting previous Bills the Home Secretary has no power if they start outside, and then come within the limits of the county of London.
  The second clause is the clause to which Amendments are likely to be moved, and I should like to say at once that what is really in the mind of the Home Secretary and His Majesty's Government in this matter is to meet the convenience of the travelling public, and it is their opinion, following out the opinion of Committees which have inquired into this question, that that condition will be most easily met by abolishing the privilege system. I think a good many of us would be glad if we found, when we arrived at the great terminal stations of London, taxicabs waiting to take us to our destination, and that, I hope, will be one of the results of the passing of this Bill.
  I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that not only a Select Committee of the other House, but also a Departmental Committee which sat in 1895, have reported in favour of the abolition of the privilege system. I think it is important that I should point out to noble Lords who are interested in the question from the point of view of the railway companies that this Bill does not in any way—nor does this clause in any way—interfere with their control over the cabs which are in the. station. With regard to cabs which are in the station, if the cabmen behave badly and do not accept the directions of the officers of the company, they can be turned out, and if any man is either drunk or brings a horse which is unfit to be driven into the station, it will be equally possible for the company to refuse admittance. But your Lordships will realise, especially by noticing Subsection (3), Clause 2, that what the Secretary of State really requires is that a fair trial should be given to this open system. It has been tried in the past, but not fairly tried. It was only tried at one single station—at Waterloo—and it is obvious, I think, to your Lordships, that any experiment of that kind must be tried widely in order that we may be sure

  1513
  what its effect will be. Under Subsection (3) the Secretary of State is empowered, if he finds that the open system is less convenient to the public, to suspend the operation of the section, so that I think your Lordships may be quite sure that there will be nothing in this Bill which will interfere with the convenience of the travelling public. But I may say that His Majesty's Government will be very willing to meet noble Lords who are interested in this question from the point of view of the railway companies, by moving any Amendments, or by agreeing to any Amendments, to make the position of the railway companies quite clear with regard to the cabs which come within the station, and I am not without hope that noble Lords opposite will see their way to agree to some Amendment which will meet their views in this Matter. At any rate, I think I may say that this is a change which is very much desired by all the cabmen in London at the present time. I do not think that the cab industry is in a very prosperous condition, and the cabmen think, not unnaturally, that the adoption of this open system will go far to assist them. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that they should wish it, and I may say that they have given an undertaking to do their best to supply the public as well as they have been supplied in the past.
  My Lords, finally let me say this—that of course there is no matter of controversy as between the two sides of the House. There was a division in Committee, and also in the Whole House in another place on this question, and the maintenance of this clause as it stands, was carried by a majority of something like 174 to 26. I think those were the exact figures. The majority included London Members on both sides of the House, and I think I may say generally that the London Members, irrespective of Party, are anxious that this Bill should pass. Therefore, I venture to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, and if you are willing to do that this afternoon, I would suggest, if it meets the convenience of noble Lords opposite, Monday for the Committee stage.
  1514
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I do not think it would be respectful to the Government or to the noble Lord, after the remarks which he has made, not to give him fair notice that there will be considerable opposition to the second clause of this Bill. I quite agree that this is not the time to discuss at full length special clauses of the Bill, but this Bill is in a sense rather a peculiar one, because it is a Bill composed of two distinct portions having no relation whatever to one another. The second portion deals entirely with privileged cabs, and the remaining part of the Bill with other questions altogether, and what I would from the first wish to impress upon your Lordships is that you may omit Clause 2 of the Bill and leave the whole of the rest of the Bill absolutely intact.
  I was extremely pleased to hear from the noble Lord that what the Government had most at heart was the convenience of the public, because if that is really the case, I do not think there will be much difficulty, when we come to the discussion of the clause, in proving that the convenience of the public will be most certainly sacrificed by the insertion of this clause in the Bill. I do not think the noble Lord was quite right in all his facts. He said that this plan of the open cab system had only been tried at one station, and that that station was Waterloo. As a matter of fact it has not only been tried, but I believe at one part of the station at Waterloo it has always been in operation, and it was tried for a considerable time at another station—namely, at Charing Cross. In the latter case it failed most hopelessly, as I will endeavour to show, and in the former case, where it already exists, the noble Lord has only to open The Times of the two last days to see the experiences of the travelling public of the country narrated in letters to that newspaper. But I do not wish to detain your Lordships by discussing what I shall have to discuss at some length, I am afraid, when this Bill gets into Committee, and I only now wish to warn your

  1515
  Lordships that most strenuous opposition will be offered to this clause, although on the other hand I may say that that opposition will not imply any hostility to the Bill in general.
  LORD STALBRIDGE: I certainly do not propose to keep your Lordships for any length of time on the present occasion, because I shall reserve most of my remarks for a later stage, when there will be a Motion to reject Clause 2 with reference to cabs. The noble Duke (the Duke of Northumberland) has pointed out that this experiment of open cabs has already been tried, and, as the noble Duke said, has failed signally. There is absolute unanimity amongst all the railway companies having large termini in the Metropolis that anything so destructive to the convenience of the public as the doing away with this system, which has been found to answer so admirably for many years past, could not be found.
  The noble Lord (Earl Beauchamp) told us that cabmen say that they will make arrangements to meet the convenience of the public in future. I read what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said in the other House with reference to that, which was simply this—that he understood from cabmen that they would go wherever there was a job, and that from his knowledge of cabmen, they would go where a good job offered itself. Anything more childish than that to put forward as a means of superseding an organisation which has grown up during many years, and which has been found to succeed, can scarcely, I think, be imagined. It is proposed to leave everything to haphazard. This is not a case in which things can be left to haphazard, as I shall be able to show when the matter comes to be discussed in detail.
  I may perhaps mention one instance in order to show your Lordships what can be done—what is done now, and what cannot be done in the future under the proposed new system. A large transatlantic steamer lands two or three hundred passengers in Liverpool. She may be four or five hours late, or she may be half a day late. We get notice of the arrival of that steamer some four hours beforehand, and then we send to
  1516
  the cab-owners whom we know, and whom we have arrangements with, and so secure that there shall be a sufficient number of cabs to meet the train. In future, what is to happen? Are we to send a crier round to all the cab-stands to say: "Cabs wanted at three in the morning"? If we did that, how many would attend? That is only one instance in which the open system would inevitably fail, and I hope we shall be able to prove to your Lordships that it will not be for the convenience of the travelling public that the present system should be got rid of.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have no desire to prolong the discussion, but I was very much struck by one remark of the noble Lord opposite (Earl Beauchamp). He said that the opinion of the London Members was unanimous on this matter. I want to know why the opinions of London Members are particularly indicative of the wants and wishes of people arriving from the country. I can suggest another reason why the London Members are likely to be all on one side in this matter, and that reason may even have occurred to the noble Lord opposite. That reason is that their constituents are interested in the matter, and that they have more care for the opinion of one or two of their constituents than for the opinions of the vague travelling public who have no votes to give them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day, for the consideration of the Commons Amendments, read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I beg to move that these Amendments be considered. I do not know whether it will be to the convenience of the noble Lords opposite that I should say what I have to say at once, or go through each Amendment separately. There is only one Amendment of any substance.

  1517
  Moved, "That the Commons Amendments be now considered."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: As I have said, there is only one Amendment of any substance, and perhaps it would meet the view of your Lordships if I proceed to say something on that at once. It is the Amendment in page 4, lines 23 to 26, to leave out Paragraph (d), and to insert a new subsection. All the other Amendments, I think, are in a direction which commended itself to the critics of the Bill when it was first before your Lordships' House. This particular Amendment goes in a somewhat contrary direction, but I hope I shall be able to show to your Lordships that it is not of very great importance, that it will affect very few places, and that the institutions which are affected are, after all, only a very small proportion of the laundries which are affected by the Bill, because your Lordships must remember that this Bill deals with all laundries. The institutional laundries are in a separate category altogether, and amongst the institutions there are a certain number which will be affected by this Amendment. The institutions affected by Clause 5 only number some 230, while the ordinary commercial laundries number something like 7,000, and even then, out of those 230 which I have mentioned, this Subsection (d) only refers to those who are engaged in reformatory and rescue work, and does not apply to all those laundries of which there are a considerable number which are of a charitable nature—orphanages and places of that kind—in which laundry work is carried on. It merely applies, as I have said, to those concerned in reformatory and rescue work. I think I must say—what will be obvious to your Lordships who are acquainted with the subject—that this Amendment is a compromise between various sections, between the Government and those who are anxious that there should be an Amendment in this direction. The Home Secretary agreed, in consequence of what took place in Committee, to support this Amendment in the House of Commons,
  1518
  and I think that House took very much the same view as the Committee—that, although it was not ideal, still it was a great deal better to have this Amendment incorporated in the Bill than to do anything which would risk the passage of the Bill this year. Under these circumstances I venture to hope that your Lordships will consent to agree to these Amendments, and to allow this Bill to become law this year.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONsaid he had only one single observation to make. He did not at all wish to oppose what the noble Lord had said, but only wanted to make it quite clear on behalf of the most rev. Primate that there was no wish on the part of institutions connected with the Church of England that the inspection clause should be in any way modified. He was very anxious to have it understood that while it was quite true that these particular laundries should be inspected in a different way from others, yet they courted the fullest inspection of all those which were connected with the Church of England.
  LORD DUNBOYNEwas about to move to disagree with the Commons Amendment to Clause 2, when
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR said: My Lords, it will perhaps be to the convenience of the House first to agree to those Amendments to which there is no opposition.
  On Question, "That the House agree to the Commons Amendments down to page 2, line 22," Motion agreed to.
  LORD DUNBOYNEmoved to disagree with the Commons Amendment leaving out Paragraph (7) and inserting a new paragraph. It seemed to him that the noble Lord who spoke in favour of this Amendment gave excellent reasons why it should be rejected. He stated that the number of institutions which would be affected by it was very small, but if the number affected was so very small as was stated, was that a reason why they should be exempt from proper supervision? It also seemed to him that the institutions which it was desired to except were those which it was

  1519
  particularly desirable should be inspected. They were all institutions in which the inmates were to a great extent there compulsorily, and he thought it extremely expedient that in all places where people were congregated together for any purpose, whether for commercial, religious, or any other reasons—where people were compulsorily congregated together, whether the compulsion was moral or physical—he would not go into that question at all—it was essential that in all those cases the institution should be open to the most complete inspection. Here it was desired not to allow any of the inmates to be inspected or spoken to except in the presence of one of the managers of the institution. What possible reason could there be for this unless it was that there was something which it was desired to conceal? He himself had visited one of these institutions, and had been told not to speak very loud, because somebody was listening on the other side of the door to everything that was being said. If people were not be to allowed to converse freely with an inspector, and if one of the managers was to be present on the occasion, it seemed to him that the inspection would be worse than useless. All the other institutions of a similar character were to have the benefit of the clause as to inspection without the presence of one of the managers, and why should these few be exempted from the general rule? He could see no reason for it. He thought it was absolutely necessary that all these institutions where inmates were compulsorily kept should be open to the fullest inspection, and he begged therefore to move to disagree with this Amendment of the Commons.
  Moved, "That this House doth disagree with Commons Amendment to leave out Paragraph (d) and insert new paragraph in place thereof."—(Lord Dunboyne.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHwished to associate himself with the remarks of the right rev. Prelate (the Lord Bishop of London) because he had taken some part, as would be remembered, in an attempt to modify this Bill at a previous stage. Two things were beyond all question. The first was that on that occasion the noble Lord who repre-
  1520
  sented the Home Office met those who were associated with him (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) in a most conciliatory spirit, and gave them very nearly all that they were inclined to ask. The whole management of this Bill by the Home Office had been extremely conciliatory, and inspired him with the hope that it was the intention of the Home Office to administer the Bill in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. Not only the public declarations of the Home Secretary, but what had been said in their Lordships' House on previous occasions had given those with whom he was associated in this matter great confidence as to the methods by which this great change in the law would be worked. It was quite clear that the clause which the noble Lord (Lord Dunboyne) objected to went much further in the same direction than he and those who were with him had asked. As the matter had been adjusted in the other House, he thought it would be ungracious on the part of those who shared the views which he held to object to the concessions given to other people, who, although they did not consider them necessary for the purposes they had in view, were in no way an infringement of the principle for which they had contended, and if the Bill was wisely and carefully administered by the Home Office, he had no doubt that those concessions would serve an equally good purpose with those which had been granted to him and to those who thought with him.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKsaid he should certainly support the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, not in any way to infringe the compromise which had been come to. As had been said, the Home Office had shown a great desire to meet the views which had been put before them, and although he for one had no strong feeling on this matter, he could bear out what had been said by the right rev. Prelate, and a great many of his co-religionists had the same feeling as he himself had upon this subject. Still, there was a great deal of opinion quite apart from religious opinion at all—he had heard people who were not Roman Catholics urge the same view with great force

  1521
  that it was very important that in those establishments which were conducted on a disciplinary system, the inmates must not be allowed in any way to believe that those under whose control they were placed were not to be trusted, and were not their friends, and so forth. That was a view which was strongly held, and which might be argued with great force. But his immediate point was that the Home Office had done their best to deal with very conflicting opinions, and that it would be very ungracious on their part to seek in any way to go back upon the compromise to which they had agreed. He certainly trusted that their Lordships would not decline to accept the Amendment of the Commons on this matter.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that some of their Lordships were placed in rather a difficult position by the debate which had taken place, because Members of their Lordships' House, all of whom enjoyed the very great respect of their Lordships, differed on the subject. A great deal had been said about the compromise in another place. He was always a little distrustful of accounts which were given in their Lordships' House of what passed in another place, because it was very difficult for them to arrive at a certain knowledge of what had taken place. Of course, if there was anything in the nature of an honourable understanding, he need hardly say that all their Lordships would feel that that had very great weight, but unless he was mistaken, His Majesty's Government in another place were very much opposed originally to this clause. The noble Lord who represented the Home Office would correct him if he was wrong, but he believed that to be the case, and, therefore, he was not quite sure, when compromise was spoken of, between whom the compromise had taken place. It did not take place between the Church of England and the Government, because, as they knew from the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London), there was no such desire on the part of the Church of England. It did not take place between the Church of Scotland and the Government, because they
  1522
  had in that House almost the greatest living representative of the Church of Scotland—namely, his noble friend, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who had told their Lordships that, so far as he was concerned, he did not wish specially for this clause. He wondered, therefore, between whom the compromise, as it was called, had taken place. If it was only a compromise between one section of the majority of His Majesty's Government and another section, that was a compromise with which their Lordships had nothing whatever to do. Therefore, they were rather brought back to the merits of the question which, after all, must not be forgotten in a discussion of this kind. What were the merits of this question? There was no doubt whatever that it was the settled policy of Parliament that these laundries should be inspected, and the reasons were very well known. It was because in the wisdom of Parliament, with which, he thought, they would all agree, all those large centres of employment required to be inspected in order that there should be security that the factory laws were obeyed. That was the reason for inspection. That was applied with great vigour—with great rigour, he might say,but not with too much vigour—to all the factories and workshops in the kingdom, and it would be applied to laundries, amongst other establishments, as soon as this Bill passed into law. The question, then, for their Lordships was, ought the rigidity of the inspection of these laundries to be waived in a particular class of cases, or ought it not? That really was the issue on the merits. Personally he had great sympathy with all these institutions which were connected with religious bodies, because he thought the religious bodies who had established such institutions were deserving of the very highest credit, and of the thanks of the community for having taken so much trouble and spent so much money and so much effort—wholly unrewarded so far as temporary reward was concerned—on behalf of these poor people. But he did not think they could shut their eyes to the fact that it was possible that in these institutions irregularities in regard to the Factory Laws might take

  1523
  place, and it was difficult for them to find an answer to the commercial laundries who said, "We are competing with these institutional laundries; you impose very rigid conditions upon us, but you do not impose the same rigid conditions upon our competitors. We are both competing in one market, and yet one set of factories is bound by these rules, while others are not." He thought that,prima facie, it was very difficult to escape from the conclusion that, unless there were very special reasons to the contrary, all factories ought to be treated alike. Was there a very special reason in this case? That was what he would like his noble friends who were interested in these institutions to tell them. If they could show that there really were very special reasons, that might be a reason why their Lordships should waive the rigidity of inspection in those cases. He did not for a moment desire, nor did any of their Lordships, to do anything by way of legislation which would interfere with the religious or disciplinary rules which existed in such establishments as those in question; but was it possible to say that an inspection of the kind proposed did so interfere? He could quite understand that if it was proposed, for instance, that men should be the inspectors of convent laundries, that would be a very gross and improper proposal, but he did not entertain a doubt that in every laundry of that kind which belonged to a convent, the inspector would be one of the many women factory inspectors, so that no difficulty of that kind would arise. The sole point was, as it appeared to him—and he would no doubt be corrected if he was wrong—whether the inmates ought to be accompanied by an officer of the institution or whether the inspector ought to have the right, if he pleased, to see the inmates alone. He would suggest to some of his noble friends who deprecated such an inspection that it was not really to their interest to seem as if they had anything to conceal. Of course, if they -made a strong case his words might be considered to be eliminated, but if they did not make a strong case, he would suggest that it would not be to their interest to act as though they had something to conceal, because there
  1524
  were numbers of persons outside who had not the same confidence in the integrity of those who conducted these institutions as he had, and who, owing to prejudices of a religious or other character, might say, and even believe, things which had no foundation in fact. Therefore, unless his noble friends had a very strong view on the subject, he was inclined to suggest that they should accept the Amendment moved by his noble friend (Lord Dunboyne).
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid he would endeavour to meet the wishes of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Salisbury) and to state the case of those who wished to exempt certain particular institutions from the operation of the clause. As the noble Marquess rightly said, the inspection under the Factory Acts was imposed upon all factories except those used for reformatory or charitable purposes,and he claimed that those regulations and rules should be enforced with regard to charitable and reformatory institutions in precisely the same manner. If that inspection only went to the condition of those institutions as factories and workshops he was sure no one would have a word to say, but among many of these institutions there was the fear that whereas a factory had no secondary or subsidiary object other than that of a factory, these institutions had a secondary, or another object, and they were afraid that that other object might be seriously interfered with by the restrictions which were imposed for a totally different purpose, namely, for the purpose of seeing that no infringement of the Factories and Workshops Acts took place within those institutions. Some of their Lordships might think these fears exaggerated, but he could assure them that in some cases they were very real and very sincere. The noble Duke (the Duke of Norfolk), had pointed out some of the reasons why in those institutions which were of a disciplinary nature, it might make a very great difference to the enforcement of discipline if an outsider came in, even for a perfectly proper reason, and gave a sort of impression to the inmates that there was an authority above the authority under which they were put. Such an impression, if created

  1525
  on the minds of the inmates, would seriously impair the efficiency of the institutions. The appeal he was going to make to their Lordships was this—whether they agreed with him, or whether they did not, they would recognise the wisdom of the action of the Government in this—that, when they were imposing new conditions upon institutions which hitherto had been outside this law of inspection, and which had fears and anxieties about the way in which it would be carried out, it would be a wise thing to begin with a wise and gentle hand, and he had no doubt that most of these institutions, when once they were accustomed to, and familiar with, the inspection which all their Lordships agreed was necessary and beneficial, would place no difficulty whatever in the way of its being carried out in a manner which would be satisfactory to everyone and satisfactory to their Lordships' House.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid he had been for many years concerned in charitable institutions in the hands of religious bodies, and many of those institutions were engaged in laundry and other industrial work. Their primary object, however, was not so much the work the undertook as the welfare of the destitute children who were under the charge of the ladies responsible for those institutions. He could say from his own personal experience, extending over a great many years, that there was never a shadow of doubt about the treatment of the children, and that the children themselves, after having left the homes and started in life, were always anxious to come back, feeling that those with whom they had been entrusted as children were the best friends they had. He was sure that among those engaged in the management of such institutions there would hardly be found a divergent opinion with regard to this—that it was quite possible very seriously to interfere with the good management of those institutions if anything excessive were introduced into the law with regard to inspection. He wished to re-echo what had fallen from other noble Lords as to their gratitude for the action of the Government in this matter, and for the very considerate way in which they had treated this question.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I do not think I need say very much in answer to what has fallen from the noble Lord (Lard Dunboyne) or from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), because the question of the principle as to whether these institutional laundries should be treated somewhat differently from the ordinary commercial laundries was debated in your Lordships' House at an earlier portion of the session, and your Lordships then agreed that these special laundries should be treated under certain circumstances, which were set forth, in a somewhat exceptional manner. What happened was that in response to representations made to the Home Secretary, he agreed to make this concession—that in a certain number (a very small number) of these laundries the interviews should take place in the presence of one of the persons having charge of the institution. As I have said before, this concession only affects a very small number of institutions, and it was the concession in this direction by which, and by which alone, the passage of this Bill was ensured in another place. This is a matter which for twelve years and more has agitated the Home Office under one Home Secretary after another, and they have all been anxious to deal with the question. Now we are within what I think I may call a very short and measurable distance of dealing with it satisfactorily under the honourable understanding which was arrived at in another place, and if the noble Marquess insists upon dividing the House, I can only tell him that the Bill will be lost.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Lord in charge of the Bill, in the first observations which he addressed to us, said he did not regard this arrangement as by any means an ideal one. It was recommended to us as a compromise, and if I may say so, I never read a clause more redolent of compromise than the one now before us. It has all the attributes of compromise. It is the most invertebrate clause I have ever read. Your Lordships will observe, in the first place, that there is what virtually comes to a dispensing power accorded to the managers of these institutions. If they withhold their consent, then there

  1527
  may be no examination of an inmate of one of these institutions save in the presence of one of the managers. To my mind, that suggests the idea of an inspection which really is not worthy of the name of an inspection at all. Then in the proviso which follows, there is another dispensing power—this time for the Secretary of State. It seems to me to come to this, that if this Amendment is accepted, these institutions virtually are to enjoy immunity from any inspection worthy of the name. Under these circumstances, I confess that my first impulse would have been to vote against the Amendment, but having listened to what has been said, I gather from those who speak on behalf of the Government that the exception we are asked to make is to be made in favour of a very small number of institutions, and that it has been agreed to as the result of discussions and negotiations which have satisfied the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that an arrangement of this kind is absolutely essential if the Bill is to be saved. I am not prepared to disregard a statement of that kind made in the name of His Majesty's Government, and, therefore, although I must say with very great misgivings, I shall not support the proposal of my noble friend Lord Dunboyne.
  Commons Amendment agreed to.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the Bill I venture to ask your Lordships to read a second time to-day is one which has received the general assent of the House of Commons. In that House it was never divided against. The object is to apply the provisions of the Life Assurance Act of 1870 to companies carrying on insurance business with regard to workmen's compensation and employers' liability. The Bill has really become necessary owing to the coming into operation on the 1st July of this year of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is
  1528
  computed that something like six millions of additional workers are brought in, and these have to be insured by their employers, and naturally the Board of Trade are very anxious that no sort of mushroom insurance business should arise, and for that reason they think it right to apply the same conditions to this business as exist in the Act of 1870. These provisions are, as your Lordships are well aware, that any company starting insurance business must deposit the sum of £20,000 in Court, and also file a balance sheet with the Board of Trade each year. In the present Bill there are a few exceptions. We intend to except existing companies, so far as regards the deposit, because obviously it would be very hard to ask them to deposit £20,000 after they have been in business for some time. We shall insist, naturally, upon their furnishing an account each year. We also intend to exempt associations of employers and underwriters. The Bill, as I have said, has been agreed to in every way in the other House, and I do not think it is necessary for me to detain your Lordships with any further remarks. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD ALLENDALE:: As your Lordships will be aware, this Bill has not yet been circulated, not yet having been returned from the printers. Of course, if any noble Lord objects to my proceeding with it to-day, I am entirely in the hands of the House, but with your Lordships' approval, I respectfully submit that you give this Bill a Second Reading, and I will not ask your Lordships to take any further stages, so that there should be an opportunity of moving Amendments on Monday, or whatever day the further consideration of the Bill is put down for. If your Lordships will agree to that, I will just say a very few words in moving the Second Reading.

  1529
  This Bill was introduced into the House of Commons by a private Member on the Opposition side of the House, and has since been taken up by the Government and starred with the object of trying to get it through this session. The object of the Bill is the early notification of births, so as to prevent, as far as possible, infant mortality, and it is believed that it would tend to prevent this mortality if, in suitable cases, the medical officer of health, under efficient supervision, were enabled to visit the home as soon as possible after the birth of the child, and to give advice as to the nurture of the child. The attention of the Local Government Board and of the public generally has been directed lately to the subject of the very great infant mortality, and it is with the object of preventing this by notifying as early as possible the birth of the child that this Bill has been proposed. Voluntary arrangements have already been made with this object in some places, and in other places Parliament has given powers for the purpose by local Acts. I do not know that I need go into the Bill, although it has not been circulated. It is a short Bill, and I think probably most of your Lordships will know the general object of it. The notice can be given either by letter or postcard within thirty-six hours after the birth. It is to be given both by the father (if he is resident in the house) and by the person in attendance. But a person will not be liable to a penalty for not giving notice if he satisfies the Court that he had reasonable grounds to believe that notice had been given by some other person. Stamped postcards containing the form of notice are to be supplied by the local authority to any medical officer or midwife who applies for the same. The Bill will be adoptive, and will only be enforced where adopted by the local authorities, and the consent of the Local Government Board is to be necessary for its adoption. The Local Government Board, however, have powers in addition to this to put the Act in force wherever they think it is necessary, although the local authority may not have proposed to adopt it, and to meet such cases, Clause 3 will empower the Local Government Board to put the Bill in force in a certain district. The local authorities under the Bill are in London the Common Council
  1530
  and the Metropolitan Borough Councils, and outside London town councils and urban and rural district councils. It is, however, provided that county councils outside London may adopt the Bill either for the whole county, or for any district in it. The Bill, as I say, was introduced in another place by Lord Robert Cecil, and has been favourably received by both sides. It passed its Second Reading without opposition there, and the Government, as I reminded your Lordships just now, have been endeavouring to render it assistance, first in the Standing Committee, and now by having starred it in the hope that your Lordships will pass it this Session, although, of course, I am aware that it is late for a Bill to be introduced into your Lordships' House. As I said, I am entirely in the hands of your Lordships, if you prefer not to give the Second Reading to-day, but I submit that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Allendale.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Lord is good enough to ask us not to put the Bill through any further stages to-day, but I contend, with deference, that he is asking us a good deal in asking us to read a second time a Bill which has not been printed, and which we have never seen. I have not a word to say against the Bill. I have no doubt it may be a most admirable Bill, but even in the times of stress through which we are now passing, we must have some regard for the common decencies of procedure. I therefore venture to appeal to the noble Lord that he will agree to the adjournment of this discussion to Monday, when we can proceed to read the Bill a second time, and then, if it turns out to be that blameless measure which he has sketched, we can consider whether we can expedite its progress.
  LORD ALLENDALE: I stated in my opening remarks that I was entirely in the hands of your Lordships, and that I did not want to press the House to take the Second Reading to-day, but as no noble Lord contested my going on, I

  1531
  ventured to proceed with the few remarks I had to make. I have, of course, no wish to go on after what has been said by the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I recollect a case of this kind occurring when I was in Opposition, and on that occasion I remembered taking exactly the same objection that my noble friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) has taken.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Was the Bill not printed on that occasion?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: It was not printed and circulated. I think what my noble friend suggests is, that this debate should now be adjourned, and that the Bill should pass through all its stages on Monday.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I did not say that. I said we should be able to consider on Monday whether the Bill was one which should be expedited.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: But it could pass through all its stages on Monday, so that the adoption of the course suggested by the noble Marquess would not necessarily lead to delay, and would not prevent the passing of the Bill. I have, therefore, no objection to that course being taken, because I feel that the proceeding is open to very serious objection, although I do not think it is altogether the fault of the Government, because we expected the Bill would have been—and I think it ought to have been—on the Table of the House when these proceedings began. But we can take the Bill on Monday, and I hope it will then go through all its stages.
  On Question, further debate adjourned to Monday next.

  COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day, for the consideration of the Commons Amendments, read.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: I move that the Commons' Amendments be considered.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: Your Lordships will remember that this Bill was first introduced into your Lordships' House last May. It has been down to the Commons House and there certain Amendments have been made. The two-principal Amendments are these. When the Bill left this House, private companies were asked to file a statement of their assets and liabilities, and it was pointed out when it got to the House of Commons that this would inflict great hardship upon these private companies. After all, private companies do not issue any debentures to the public or any shares. and they consider that they are entitled to preferential treatment. The other House took that view, and have amended the Bill accordingly.
  The other Amendment is to Clause 7. This Clause, as it left your Lordships' House, empowered a company which had been in existence for two years to issue capital at a discount. This the Commons have also amended, and they have removed the clause. I believe the noble Lord on the Woolsack was not in favour of this. He thought the original provision, as it was brought before your Lordships' House, was rather dangerous. I would venture to ask the House what course they would wish me to go through—whether they prefer that I should go through all the Amendments, many of which are drafting Amendments, or take them altogether. I may say that the Board of Trade are perfectly willing to accept the Bill as it at present stands.
  Moved, "That the Commons Amendments be agreed to."—(The Earl of Granard.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that so far as they on that Bench we re-concerned, they were willing to leave the matter in the hands of the noble Lord. The Bill, as the noble Lord had reminded their Lordships, had been discussed at a very much earlier period of the year. At that time, noble Lords who were interested in the matter had not gone on their holidays, and there were then a great many commercial and legal Lords present. These had now all gone away, except the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Therefore they must take all their legal advice from

  1533
  him, and if he was satisfied that these Amendments were such as ought to be agreed to, he was certainly not in a position to say that he was wrong—on the contrary, he would no doubt be right.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that the first of the two points the noble Lord (the Earl of Granard) had mentioned was one which he (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) had strongly pressed upon the acceptance of the Government, but they would not accept it. He was very glad to see that the wisdom of another place had convinced them that his proposal was the right one.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is always a pleasure to find the noble Lord's opinion supported in another place. I ought to tell the House that although I have not in detail gone through all these Amendments, I am acquainted with the two principal Amendments, and with the subject-matter of them. The first is this. This House consented—I am not sure that it liked it—to allowing shares to be issued at a discount. The House of Commons thinks that that ought not to be, and I may say for myself that I have always had a good deal of misgiving on the subject, and I so stated in your Lordships' House when it was before us. Since then I have had an opportunity of communicating with a most distinguished authority, Lord Justice Buckley, who holds a very strong view that such shares ought not to be issued. I have communicated that to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade, I may say, was a party to this alteration being made.
  With regard to the other important point, I may say it is one in which, to be quite frank, I would have preferred that the Commons Amendment had not been made. It is that certain companies, which may be regarded as private companies, are not to be required to furnish
  1534
  the information in the form of a balance sheet which other companies are expected to supply. I so seldom get my own way that I am not at all surprised that I did not get it in this instance. A great many of your Lordships differed from me, and in the House of Commons apparently it was thought better that private companies should have this privilege. If that be so, I certainly should not think of insisting upon my own opinion. As I say, I have not gone into all the other Amendments, but they are matters which have been approved of by the Board of Trade, and the Bill is one which is wholly non-contentious, and the outcome of the Committee presided over by the predecessor of my right hon. friend.
  On Question, Commons Amendments agreed to.

  VACCINATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, these are not really Commons Amendments. The Amendment is one which was moved in this House by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour of Burleigh), and in accordance with the form of Parliament, as it affected money it was moved again in the House of Commons, and has now come back for your Lordships' formal approval. I beg to move that the House do now agree with the Commons Amendments.
  Moved, "That the House do agree with the Commons Amendments."—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Four o'clock, to Monday next, at a quarter past Four o'clock.