Sitting of 27 August 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  CONGO FREE STATE.
  Petition from Manchester, for protection of the native races; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Stirling, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POSTAL AGREEMENT (BULGARIA).
  Copy presented, of Postal Agreement for an exchange of Postal and Telegraph Money Orders between the Post Office of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of Bulgaria [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCANTILE MARINE.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the Supply and Training of Boy Seamen for the Mercantile Marine. Vol. I., Report. Vol. II, Minutes of Evidence and Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1906.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th August; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 348.]
  COAL TABLES, 1906.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th August; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 349.]
  IRON AND STEEL, 1906.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th August; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 350.]
  EXPORTS TO CHINA AND SOUTH AMERICA.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th August; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 351.]
  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, during the year ended 27th July, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 352.]
  PILOTAGE.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Returns relating to Pilots and Pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 221 of Session 1906) as furnished by the various Pilotage Authorities [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 353.]
  HARWICH HARBOUR.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of the Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board from the time of their incorporation down to and inclusive of the 31st March, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 354.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3909 to 3916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 26, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Protocol for the Accession of Non-Signatory Powers to the Convention of 29th July 1899, for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 14th June, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (STATISTICAL ABSTRACT).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Abstract relating to British India from 1896–7 to 1905–6. Forty-first Number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Copy presented, of Additional and Amending General Orders for the Regulation of Proceedings under and in pursuance of The Private Legislation Procedure

  375
  (Scotland) Act, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 355.]

  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL.)
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report, No. 535 (Malta, Report for 1906–7) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Copy presented, of Orders made by the County Councils of Carnarvon and Somerset, under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Statement of Modification permitted by the Local Government Board to be made in the London (Providence Place, Poplar) Improvement Scheme, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MOTOR CAR ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Regulations made under the Acts: I. Ware; II. London; III. Smethwick [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.

  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Report of the Health of the Navy for the year

  Name of Service.

  Date of commencement of Contract.

  Contract terminable.

  Particulars of Service.

  Total Subsidy.

  Sums to be set off against gross Subsidy in respect of contributions from Colonies, &c., Sea Postage for Mails despatched by Colonies and Foreign Countries, &c.

  Net Charge on Exchequer.

  Remarks.

  —(Mr. Harold Cox.)

  TRANSVAAL COLONY (CIVIL SERVANTS DISMISSED.)
  Address for "Return showing the names, posts, and salaries of the Civil Servants who have been or may be retrenched or discharged from the Transvaal service from the 1st day of May to the 1st day of October, 1907."—(Mr. Wedgwood.)
  1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 356.]

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table:—List of the Bills, Reports, Estimates, and Accounts and Papers printed by order of the House, and of Papers presented by Command, Session 1907, with a General Alphabetical Index thereto, 28th Parliament, Second Session, 7th Edward VII., 12th February, 1907, to 28th August, 1907; to be printed. [No. 357.]
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Public Bills (Allocation of Time),—Return relative thereto [ordered 26th August; Mr. Jowett]; to be printed. [No. 358.]
  STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES.
  Order [16th May] for a Return relative thereto read and discharged; and instead thereof:—
  STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES.
  Return ordered, "of all sums payable out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom in the year 1906–7 in respect of Steamship Subsidies for Foreign and Colonial Services in the following form, viz.:—
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish Teachers' Certificates.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that Irish teachers who spent two years in

  377
  training before 1898, und received their certificate in Ireland, are not recognised as certificated teachers in England; and whether, seeing that Irish teachers who have been trained since 1898, and who have passed their qualifying examination, are recognised as certificated teachers, will he take steps to put these older teachers in an equally good position with their juniors.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The hon. Member is not quite correct in stating that Irish teachers who were trained before 1898 are not recognised as certificated teachers in England. These teachers are eligible for recognition provided they are certificated in the first class by the Irish Commissioners of National Education. I fear that, in justice to the Irish teachers who were examined under the revised system and to English teachers, I can hold out no hope of this condition being modified or relaxed.

  Inland Revenue Claims Branch.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give instructions to the Claims Branch of the Inland Revenue to grant facilities to individual claimants in all cases of difficulty as to the evidence which the Board may require to prove the ownership of income derived from investments standing in names other than their own.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) As I stated in a reply to the hon. Member printed with the Votes for the 3rd July, the nature of the document required as evidence cannot be prescribed in general terms, but must depend upon the particular circumstances of each case, which, if there be any doubt or difficulty as to what is required, should be represented to the Board of Inland Revenue, who will then be ready to give any assistance in their power.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take such steps as are in his power to effect some immediate reform in the Claims Branch of the Inland Revenue, so as to expedite the settlement of outstanding claims, many of which have been shelved for six months without having been attended to in any way.
  378
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) On the general question of the delay in dealing with repayment claims, I fear I cannot add anything to the replies which I gave to Questions by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone on the 6th instant, and by the hon. Member for the Rye Division on the 22nd instant † If, however, the hon. Member will give particulars of any claim which has "been shelved for six months without having been attended to in any way," I will have the case inquired into.

  Norwegian Whaling Factories.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing that the Norwegian Government has prohibited the continuance and the setting up of whaling factories on the coast of Norway; and, if so, for what reason that course was adopted.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) By a law which came into force in 1904 the slaughter of whales is forbidden off the coast of certain Norwegian provinces. It is understood that the object of this law is to protect the fin-whale, on the ground that it is of use to fishermen engaged in the cod-fishing industry through its indicating the position of shoals of fish.

  East Indian Railway.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India how many wagons and engines have been ordered out of the £800,000 taken for that purpose from the gold currency reserve, and how many the East Indian Railway have bought out of the one and a-half million pounds raised by that company in debentures.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The decision to appropriate a portion of the profits on the coinage of silver to the provision of rolling stock for railways enabled the Secretary of State to order, in addition to what had previously been ordered, 1,450 open coal wagons and 4,242 covered wagons, but no engines, at a cost of £930,000. In regard to the East Indian Railway Company, no further sum was available for the purchase of rolling stock in consequence of the recent issue of debenture stock. The amount
  † See (4) Debates, clxxix., 1830, clxxxi., 1082–3.

  379
  obtained by this issue is taken in reduction of the company's overdrafts, the total advanced to the company by the Secretary of State amounting to a considerably larger sum.

  Deaths from Plague in India.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the deaths from plague in the last eight years, amounting to 5,000,000 in all, work out to an average of 2·135 per 1,000 per year; and, if so, whether the constant and greater mortality from malaria will also be referred to a commission of experts should such be appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) As I explained in my Answer to a Question of the hon. Member on the 20th August, any such calculation of a ratio of plague deaths to the total population of India may be misleading, and is not necessarily a true index of the prevalence of plague in comparison with other diseases. The Government of India are aware of the great annual mortality from malarial complaints, and have recently undertaken an inquiry into the etiology of fevers of that class prevalent in the Bengal Dooars. Plague and malaria present different problems, which must be investigated separately.

  Ceylon Tea and Rubber Districts.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the sanction will be accorded at an early date for the Manaar Railway and the two local lines considered necessary for opening up tea and rubber districts in Ceylon.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The first step of course is the surveying of these lines, and this has been put in hand. The Secretary of State will of course reserve his final decision in each case until the results of the surveys are before him.

  Taxes on Commercial Travellers in South Africa.
  MR. MILDMAY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Natal Government proposes to introduce a Bill whereby commercial travellers representing British manufacturers will be taxed £25
  380
  per annum for every firm represented by them; and whether, seeing that such legislation would entirely exclude from Natal four-fifths of the travellers who thus earn a living in that Colony, the Colonial Office can make such representations as may be necessary in their interests.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State is aware of the proposed legislation, and has received a number of representations that it will be seriously prejudicial to British trade. He has thought it right to bring these representations to the notice of the Governor of Natal by telegram.

  Natal Field Force and the Mandhlakazi Tribe.
  MR. BYLES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the recent questions in the Natal Parliament and to the replies of the Prime Minister, stating that the Natal Field Force had been employed in destroying 200 huts belonging to the Natives of the Mandhlakazi tribe, the people being dissatisfied with the chief appointed by the Governor; and, having regard to the circumstances in which Zululand was handed over to Natal, can he say what are the reasons which have led to the determined refusal of the tribe to recognise the chief referred to, and on account of which the inhabitants are being subjected to this enforced migration.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State is aware of the matters referred to by the hon. Member. According to accounts from Natal, the action of the Natal Government was explained by the Prime Minister as being due to continued and persistent defiance of the Governor's order by a section of the tribe which had refused to recognise the chief appointed by the Governor in 1905, after a very careful inquiry as to the rights of those claiming the succession.

  Petitions upon the Sugar Convention.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the list of

  381
  representations and petitions from public and private bodies throughout the Empire upon the Sugar Convention which have arrived since the previous petitions and representations were published.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Since the publication of Cd. 3565, representations have been received from the following:—Invercargill (New Zealand) Chamber of Commerce; Newcastle (New South Wales) Chamber of Commerce; Nevis Agricultural and Commercial Society; Cairns (North Queensland) Chamber of Commerce; Mauritius Chamber of Agriculture (Telegraphic report printed in Cd. 3565); Legislative Council of Jamaica; Jamaica Agricultural Society; Council of Royal Jamaica Society of Agriculture and Commerce and Merchants' Exchange; Northside Sugar Planters' Association; Townsville Chamber of Commerce, Queensland; Barbados Agricultural Society; Barbados House of Assembly; Australian Sugar Producers' Association. The representation from the last-named Association has been received since the date on which the former Question of the hon. Member on this subject was answered.

  Board of Trade and Railway Stock.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what was the total market value of the stock of the railways under the control of the Board of Trade upon 1st August, 1905, and the same day in 1907; and what was the average dividend paid on the ordinary stock of the railways of the United Kingdom for the first half-year in 1905 and 1907, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have no official information as to the market value of all the railway stocks of the United Kingdom, and to obtain such particulars would entail a very elaborate and difficult inquiry. As regards the second part of the Question, complete half-yearly accounts for all the railways are not yet available for the first half-year of 1907, the accounts of the Scottish companies in particular not having been yet received at the Board of Trade. I have, however, had the accounts of twenty-four of the principal English,
  382
  Welsh, and Irish companies examined, whose ordinary capital amounts to about three-quarters of the ordinary capital of the railways of the United Kingdom, and I find that the average dividend on such capital amounted to 3·22 per cent. for the first half of 1907 as against 2·99 per cent. for the first half of 1905.

  General Lighthouse Fund Accounts.
  MR. W. R. REA: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the General Lighthouse Fund Accounts for the year ending 31st March, 1906, will be laid upon the Table of the House before the adjournment; and, if not, what is the reason of the delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1906, were presented to Parliament in December last. Complete accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1907, have not yet been received. The accounts will be presented to Parliament at the earliest opportunity after the necessary certificate of the Comptroller and Auditor-General has been furnished to the Board of Trade. I have given instructions that advance copies of these accounts shall he furnished as soon as they are received to the members of the Advisory Committee on new lighthouse works.

  Navy—Allocation of Crews.
  SIR JOHN BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in allocating men to the various ships, more regard can he had to the place of residence of the wives and families of the men; and whether he is aware that under the new system the practice has increased of sending men of the Eastern Division to serve on ships of the Western Division, and vice versa.
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) As regards the first Question this is done as far as possible. The practice of sending men to port divisions other than their own is not increasing. In a few cases of ships belonging to the Chatham Port Division men have been temporarily lent from other ports as required by the exigencies of the service, but these men are being returned to their proper port as opportunities arise.

  Audit Office Records.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will now state the names of the various accounts on which duplicate records are kept in the Audit Office, and the proportion of time on each of such accounts devoted to duplication and to auditing respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have nothing to add to the replies already given on this subject.

  The Assistant Comptroller and Auditor- General.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the Assistant Comptroller and Auditor, on appointment, undertook to perform any additional duties that might devolve upon him as a result of the abolition of the chief clerkship then in contemplation, he will explain why £50 non-pensionable allowance was merged in the salary of the private secretary for pensionable purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have nothing to add to the replies already given on this subject.

  Colonial Audit Branch.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Mr. Barnes, of the Colonial Audit Branch in London, received instructions to prepare for transfer to Cyprus, and, if so, whether such instructions have been cancelled, and why; whether Mr. Grannum, local auditor in Cyprus, with about £500 per annum after ten years service, although he never passed a Civil Service examination for his position, received similar instructions to prepare for transfer to London; whether such instructions have been cancelled, and, if so, why; and, seeing that under similar circumstances Mr. Bathurst was transferred from Gibraltar to London and promoted to be chief examiner at his Colonial rate of £486 per annum, will he state what position and salary did the Comptroller and Auditor-General contemplate giving Mr. Grannum before his transfer was cancelled.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Comptroller and Auditor-General is neces-
  384
  sarily the best judge as to the local disposition of the several officers of his Department which is most to the advantage of the public service, and I am not prepared to inquire into his reasons for transferring or not transferring particular officers or into the hypothetical consequences of an unrealised contingency.

  Exchequer and Audit Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the respective salaries of Messrs. Bunbury, Robinson, and Dixon, of the Exchequer and Audit Department, immediately prior to 1st November, 1905, the length of service of each, and the respective increments due and salaries accorded to them on 1st November, 1905; the respective numbers of Second Division clerks who had between twenty-four and twenty-eight years service, nineteen and twenty-three years service, fourteen and eighteen years service, and eight and thirteen years service on 1st November, 1905, and whose higher division certificates were granted as from that date; and the average salary of each clerk in each group immediately preceding and immediately succeeding that date, showing in each case the average increment due on 1st November, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am not prepared to call upon the Department to undertake the preparation of such a statement, the value of which appears in no way commensurate with the labour involved.

  Liverpool Distilleries.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has any official information showing that, in bonded warehouses in England, new raw grain spirit from Liverpool distilleries is frequently blended in large vats with a few casks of spirits from Scotland, some buckets of burnt sugar added, and the mixture sold as mild old Irish whiskey; and, if so, what steps are being taken to stop this fraud on the English public.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have consulted the Customs and inland Revenue, and neither of them is aware of any case answering to the hon. Member's description.

  Second Division Clerks.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the Order in Council which is proposed to be issued altering the scale of salary applying to the Second Division clerks of the Civil Service, provision will be made by which the salary of a clerk who entered that division from a subordinate class shall be based on the present salary, and not calculated merely according to the years of service in the division.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to a similar Question by the hon.

  Year.

  Number of applications for transfer recorded.

  Number of vacancies for women clerks in Dublin.

  1903

  11

  4

  1904

  6

  1‡

  1905

  6

  3

  1906

  13

  Nil.

  1907 (to date)

  15

  13 (including 10 new appointments consequent upon the transfer of certain postal order work to Dublin.

  ‡ This vacancy and one of those which occurred in 1905 were not filled owing to a reduction in force.

  There are now sixty-nine names on the list of women clerks desirous of transfer to Dublin.

  Irish Savings Bank Deposits.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that it is a fact in Savings Bank circles that the percentages, or figures immediately leading thereto, of Irish deposits and withdrawals made through British deposit books, and vice versa, have been actually worked out in the Post Office Savings Bank for the year 1906, or for a certain quarter or quarters of 1906, he will now order the Controller of the Savings Bank to furnish these percentages for the last available year or quarter; and, if not, will he say whether the refusal to publish these percentages is owing to the fact that their publication would destroy the only pretext the Post Office can put forward against having the Irish accounts kept in Dublin.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the total
  Member for the Tottenham Division of Middlesex on the 22nd instant.†

  Post Office Women Clerks.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state the number of Post Office women clerks serving in London who, during each of the last five years, desired a transfer to Dublin and who had their names entered in the Post Office books in London for this purpose; and the number of vacancies during each of the last five years in the clerical staff of women clerks in Dublin.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The particulars desired by the hon. Member are as follows:—
  amount of the Post Office Savings Bank withdrawals in Ireland during the year ended 31st December, 1906, was £2,209,846, and that of this amount only £144,000, or less than one-fifteenth of the whole, was withdrawn on demand in sums of £1 and under, he will explain how the inconvenience caused to Irish depositors by the present arrangement of keeping the Irish savings bank accounts in London has been much diminished by the system of withdrawal on demand for sums not exceeding £1.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am afraid I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given to my hon. friend's previous Questions on these subjects.

  Bradwell-on-Sea Postal Deliveries.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has now been able to arrange for an
  † See (4) Debates, clxxxi., 118–9.

  387
  earlier morning delivery of letters at Bradwell-on-Sea, Essex.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am sending the hon. Member a written reply.

  Shetland Fishing Industry.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can say what are approximately the number of persons employed in Shetland in connection with the whaling industry and the herring fishing industry, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I understand that the number of persons employed in the whaling industry in Shetland is approximately 308, consisting of ninety-six foreigners aboard vessels and 137 foreigners and seventy-five local labourers ashore. The number employed in connection with the herring industry fluctuates so greatly throughout the season that it is impossible to give any reliable figure. Last year the greatest number employed at one time was 20,186, comprising fishermen, curers, coopers, gutters and packers, and general labourers; a large majority of these belonged to other districts in Scotland and were at Shetland temporarily for herring fishing.

  Solway Fishing Industry.
  MR. MOLTENO: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the dissatis-

  Name of institution.

  District or parish in which burial ground is situate.

  Date of approval.

  Carmelite Convent, Silver Hall -

  Heston and Isleworth Urban District

  21st April 1902

  Convent of the Burnham Community of the Sisters of the Sacred Heart

  Burnham Urban District, Somerset

  17th Dec. 1902

  Benedictine Priory of the Sacred Heart

  Ventnor Urban District

  31st Dec. 1902

  Clarence House Convent of Benedictine Nuns

  East Cowes Urban District

  18th July 1903

  Conventional Church of the Society of St. John the Evangelist at Cowley

  City of Oxford

  7th Nov. 1904

  East Dene, occupied by Nuns of the Order of the Sacred Heart

  Bonchurch, Isle of Wight Portslade

  28th Feb. 1905

  St. Mary's Convent, Portslade

  St. Cecilia's Abbey, occupied by Benedictine Nuns

  St. Helen's Urban District, Isle of Wight

  28th June 1906

  19th July 1907

  Monastery on the Quarr Abbey House Estate

  Binstead, Isle of Wight

  14th Aug. 1907

  faction prevailing among the fishermen of the Scottish portion of the Solway in regard to the conditions under which they have to carry on their industry; whether he is aware that legislation was at one time in contemplation; and whether he will consider what steps of this nature can be taken at an early date.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am aware of the dissatisfaction prevailing in reference to this matter and the suggestions that have been advanced for legislation. I have placed myself in communication with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and learn that it is hoped the Salmon Fisheries Act for England of this session may materially facilitate a settlment of this question.

  Private Burial Grounds.
  MR. H. BEAUMONT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will give the names and localities of the various private burial grounds to use which permission has been granted to religious institutions during the last five years.
  (Answered, by Mr. John Burns. The particulars of the several cases in which approval was given during the five years ended 31st December last, and of two cases in which approval has since been given are as follows:—

  Bradford Drunkenness Prosecution.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Lee, who on 12th April 1906, was fined 10s. and costs for being drunk and incapable by the West Riding Bench at Bradford; whether he is aware that a fortnight was allowed him in which to pay, at the expiration of which he applied for an extension of time at the Shipley police station, which was refused, the fine was subsequently paid and a receipt given, but on 30th April Lee was arrested and taken to Wakefield Gaol; whether he is aware that he was released by order on 2nd May, and the amount of the fine, 10s., was tendered to him as compensation, this was refused; whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case, and say what course he is prepared to take for compensating Lee for the illegal arrest and false imprisonment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) My attention has not been previously called to this matter. I will make inquiry into it; but I may remind my hon. friend that, if the facts are as stated, Lee has his remedy at law.

  Estates Commissioners and Lands of Mr. Walter Morrogh of Cork.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state if Mr. Walter Morrogh, of South Mall, Cork, or his agent, E. H. Poe Hosford, of Limerick, has offered the lands in the electoral division, Killahan, near Ardfert, North Kerry, for sale to the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The lands referred to have not been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners.

  Congestion in County Clare.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the attention of the Congested Districts Board has been drawn to the state of congestion which exists in the Mount Shannon district notably on the Wakely estate, Scariff, county Clare; whether the Congested
  390
  Districts Board sought to improve the lot of these tenants by purchasing the untenanted lands on the estate; and whether, in view of the character of the agreements to purchase those lands entered into by some large holders of land in the neighbourhood, he will take such steps as are necessary to prevent the alienation of those lands from the mountain congests in the district.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board received last year a memorial from the tenants on the Wakely estate asking the Board to interfere in the letting of the untenanted lands by the owner. The estate, however, has not been offered for sale to the Board, and they have therefore taken no steps to purchase it.

  Wakely Estate, Scariff.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Wakely estate, Scariff, county Clare, are being pressed by the owners of the estate to sign purchase agreements, including the payment of a sum of money for each tenant over and above the price to be fixed by the Estates Commissioners; and whether, in view of the number of small holdings on this property, steps will be taken by the Estates Commissioners to protect them against pressure by ordering an inspection of their holdings.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been directed to a number of new tenancies created on the Wakely estate, Scariff, county Clare; whether he has any official information showing that this was done in anticipation of the Estates Commissioners purchasing the grazing lands in the interest of the small tenants on the property; and whether the Commissioners will institute immediate inquiry into the matter before the agreements to purchase signed by the non-residential grazing tenants are sanctioned.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that proceedings for the sale of the estate referred

  391
  to in these two Questions have not up to the present been instituted before them. In the event of proceedings, the Commissioners will after due inquiry give full consideration to the matters of fact alleged in the Questions.

  Lindsay Talbot Crosbie Estate, Ardfert.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a complaint has been made by John Keeffe, of Kileade, a tenant on the Lindsay Talbot Crosbie estate, at Ardfert, to the Estates Commissioners about his land being flooded; whether an inspector has visited his farm; and, if so, whether the landlord or the Estates Commissioners have or will reduce the price in his purchase agreement which was only signed after a writ was served on him by the landlord for £117 12s. 8d.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners received a complaint from John Keeffe as to the flooding of his holding. The complaint was duly inquired into by an inspector who visited the land and reported on the matter. The Commissioners after due consideration sanctioned the advance applied for by the tenant, and the holding has since been vested in him. The Commissioners have no power to reduce the advance which has been made.

  Tarbert Eviction.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Captain Robert Leslie, D.L., Tarbert, county Kerry, obtained the assistance of Sergeant Curran and two constables of Tarbert police station to evict a woman named Murray from her house in the village of Tarbert; that the police, headed by Sergeant Curran, obtained sticks and broke open the door and windows of this house and evicted this woman without producing a warrant or any order of a court of law; that Sergeant Curran summoned Miss Murray for assault on the occasion and the resident magistrate, James W. Flanagan, dismissed the case and stated that the sergeant acted perfectly illegally in carrrying out an eviction without producing a warrant, or in aiding or assisting the bailiffs; and will the Forces
  392
  of the Crown be in future refused Captain Leslie in carrying out such proceedings.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Captain Leslie obtained from the magistrates in petty sessions a decree for possession of a small tenement which was in the occupation of Mary Murray, and the warrant was addressed to the police under the provisions of the Statute 14 and 15 Vic, c. 92, Section 15, Subsection 3. Mary Murray resisted the execution of the warrant, and the police therefore forced open the door. It is the fact that Sergeant Curran prosecuted Mary Murray for assault, and that the resident magistrate dismissed the case on the ground that the warrant was not produced. No reference, however, was made to bailiffs, for no bailiffs were concerned in the matter. The police have no option but to execute warrants for the possession of small tenements when such warrants are addressed to them under the Act quoted.

  C. D. O'Rorke's Estate, Galway.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Land Judge has yet come to any decision with reference to the offer for the estate of C. D. O'Rorke, county Galway, made by the Estates Commissioners; and, if not, how soon a decision is likely to be arrived at.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Registrar of the Land Judge's Court informs me that the Land Judge has not come to a decision in this matter. The parties interested in the estate are still considering their position in reference to the offer made by the Estates Commissioners. No decision can now be arrived at until next sittings.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps the Estates Commissioners took with regard to acquiring the demesne and untenanted land, amounting to 700 acres, which the owners of the Woodrooffe estate, county Waterford, offered for sale in the Land. Judge's Court; whether the Estate Commissioners have any knowledge that these lands, except a small portion of rough land

  393
  offered to them, have been sold by the Land Judge; if so, what are the names of the purchasers; what is the area which each of them has bought, and at what price; whether an application is pending before the Estates Commissioners for the sale of tenanted land on this estate to the occupiers; whether a number of the tenants have refused to sign purchase agreements on the terms demanded; and whether, in view of the intention of the Land Act of 1903 and to the number of uneconomic mountain holdings on this estate, the Estates Commissioners propose to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On 31st October last the Estates Commissioners issued a request to the Land Judge under Section 7 of the Act of 1903 in regard to the Woodrooffe estate. On 8th March following the Commissioners were furnished with particulars of 434 acres of untenanted land proposed to be sold to them. The Commissioners have had this land inspected, but have not yet made an offer to purchase it. They are at present making further inquiries in the matter, and in the meantime cannot say what action they may decide to take. The Registrar of the Land Judge's Court informs me that untenanted land on this estate has been sold to the following purchasers at the prices stated: Claud Anson, 2,133 acres, £7,308; James Crooks, 303 acres, £1,400; Michael Walsh, 19 acres, £40; Mary Walsh, 27 acres, £60; Daniel Devine, 70 acres, £200; William Devine, 10 acres, £22. No proceedings are pending before the Estates Commissioners for the sale of the tenanted land. This portion of the property is being sold by the Land Judge to the tenants direct. The Commissioners have no informtion as to whether any of the tenants have refused to sign purchase agreements.

  Soldiers and Plain Clothes.
  SIR JOHN BENN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, under the King's Regulations, Paragraph 1955, as amended by Army Order 171 of 1907, men living in Devonport, Stonehouse, and Plymouth cannot get a permit to wear plain clothes at all unless they want to leave the district on pass or furlough; and whether,
  394
  as this limitation is regarded by the lower ranks of the service as a grievance, he will consider extending the order to men of all ranks of very good character, or else allow men with standing passes to wear plain clothes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I would refer my hon. friend to the Answer I gave on this subject on the 14th instant to the hon. Member for the Totnes Division, to the effect that the extension of the privilege to wear plain clothes has only recently been made to certain classes of non-commissioned officers. Soldiers of good character are, under existing regulations, permitted at the discretion of their commanding officer to wear plain clothes on pass or furlough beyond the limits of the garrison in which they are quartered. It is not proposed further to extend this privilege.

  Belfast Riots.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for War will he say the number of soldiers injured during the Belfast riots and the particulars of the injuries they received.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The total number of the military injured during the Belfast riots were three officers and thirty-five non-commissioned officers and men. The information as to the exact nature of the injuries has not yet been received, but it will be communicated in due course to my hon. friend

  Catholic Soldiers' Children.
  MR. W. BENN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the hardship suffered by Catholic soldiers in barracks at Sheffield, Hounslow, and elsewhere, who desire to send their children to schools outside the barracks, but are not permitted by the regulations to do so; and whether he will so amend the regulations as to make it possible for these children to attend the school their parents desire.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) These and similar cases are now being inquired into, and I will consider whether

  395
  any Amendment of the regulations is necessary.

  Army Horse Shoe Contracts.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if an order for 100,000 pairs of horse shoes has recently been placed by the War Department in America; if 417 kegs of horse shoes which arrived this month for C. & Co., per ss. "Minnetonka," 808 kegs per ss. "Minneapolis," and 435 kegs per ss. "Minnehaha," from New York, were in reality for the shoeing of British Army horses; and, having regard to the depression in the horseshoe trade in the United Kingdom and among farriers generally, owing to the increase in the use of motors, if he can explain why His Majesty's Government did not give this order in a way to support British industries and British workers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Answer to the first part of this Question is in the affirmative; to the second, that these are probably the shoes ordered on the contract referred to. As regards the final paragraph, I can only say that in the interests of the economical administration of the Army I cannot disregard sources of supply which are satisfactory both as regards price and efficiency.

  Tidworth Barrack Contracts.
  MR. ROGERS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether bricks made at Dodsdown, Great Bedwyn, have been rejected by the War Office for use by the contractor in the construction of the new cavalry barracks at Tidworth; and, if so, on what grounds.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Yes, Sir, these bricks have been rejected, as they did not comply with the requirements of the specification.

  Ely Barracks.
  MR. RAWLINSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can say how soon the War Office will come to a decision upon the question of the repair of the Ely Barracks; and whether it is intended
  396
  that in the interval the permanent staff shall continue to reside in the barracks which have been declared by the War Office to be insanitary; and whether the War Office are still continuing to pay rent for the barracks despite their present condition.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As regards the first part of the Question the matter is under consideration. As regards the second part, I am not aware that the barracks have been declared insanitary; although the drains require reconstruction, the barracks are still being occupied. The Answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative. The barracks are held on a lease, which can be broken on twelve months notice, if it is decided not to keep them.

  Port Royal Garrison.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War, if, since the earthquake in Jamaica, yellow or other malignant fever has broken out at Port Royal; if there has been great mortality among the British troops there stationed; and, if so, will he cause them to be removed to healthier quarters.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane). There have been only two cases of malaria among the European troops and seven cases among the non-Europeans at Port Royal since the commencement of this year. None of these was fatal. There have been no cases of yellow fever or enteric. There are in this Department no statistics regarding the health of the civil population at Port Royal.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Rating of Shipwrights.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is a fact that the rating of shipwright has suddenly been closed to carpenters' crews who had not passed the shipwright's examination prior to 1906; and whether, if that be so, he will take into consideration the claims to advancement to this rating of those who, under a misapprehension, have worked for and passed the examinations for

  397
  shipwrights and leading shipwrights, and who joined His Majesty's Navy under the inducement held out to them that this way would be open to them to attain the position of petty officer.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,: It is not correct to say that the rating of shipwright has suddenly been closed to leading carpenters' crews who had not passed prior to 1906. Owing to the redistribution of the Fleet and the paying off of some of the older vessels, the higher ratings in the shipwright and other artisan classes are overborne, and consequently the advancement of the lower ratings, which normally is only made when there are vacancies, has been delayed. The matter is now engaging the attention of the Admiralty.
  MR. MILDMAYasked whether he might conclude that, upon the block being removed, the rating of shipwright would be reopened to leading carpenter's crews?
  MR. BOWLESasked if the regulations of 1906 still held good.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid he could only repeat that the whole matter was being considered by the Admiralty.
  MR. MILDMAYexpressed the hope that he might gather that such advancement was only delayed until the block had been removed.

  British West Indies—Laws for the Protection of Emigrants.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House copies of the laws passed for the protection of emigrants by the British West Indian Colonies.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,: I would refer the hon. Member to an Answer to a similar question which I gave to the hon. Member for Gravesend yesterday.†
  † See (4) Debates, clxxxii., 152.

  Travellers' Licences in South Africa.
  MR. BRANCH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the Government of Natal, South Africa, propose largely to increase the charges for licences to travellers from £10 inclusive of all firms whom they represent to £25 for each firm; and whether he will use his influence to avert this injury to British trade.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is aware of the proposed legislation and has received a number of representations that it will be seriously prejudicial to British trade. He has thought it right to bring these representations to the notice of the Governor of Natal by telegram.

  Collapse of Egyptian Buildings.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can yet give information as to the number of buildings which have collapsed in Alexandria, Cairo, and their environs, in the past twelve months, and the number of persons thereby killed and injured.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,: The Report which has been called for on the subject has not yet been received.

  Egyptian Teachers.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can yet state the total amount of provision made by the Egyptian Government for sending students to Europe; and what prospect there is of increase in the number of qualified Egyptian teachers.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Budget of the Egyptian Ministry of Education for 1908 has not yet been considered by the Council of Ministers, and will not be finally settled till October. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the special credit allotted for any particular purpose will be. I may state, however, that the Egyptian Ministry of Education is making arrangements with a view to sending this autumn nineteen Egyptian students—a number not previously equalled—for

  399
  training and further study in England, in addition to those who are already in this country undergoing special courses of instruction. It is hoped that all these Egyptian students, on the completion of their training, will enter the service of the Egyptian Government as teachers.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will obtain for the information of the House a classified list of professors who were employed by the Egyptian Government in teaching the sciences in Arabic at the date of the British occupation.
  I beg further to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will obtain for the information of the House a classified list of works, written in or translated into Arabic, upon scientific and technical subjects, and published in Arabic by the National Printing Press of Egypt, between the date of Mohamed Ali's accession, 1806, and that of the British occupation, 1882.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: In answer to these Questions I must point out that I have already caused a great deal of extra, and in some cases laborious, work on the part of officials in Egypt, by asking for detailed information in reply to Questions. In this case, I do not think it would be reasonable to ask them to make inquiries dating back to 1806. I do not know whether the information could be obtained; I do not suppose it could be obtained without much trouble; and when obtained a list of persons and books could not be a guide to the value of the instruction given by them.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: May I ask if such a list could not be easily obtained in London, and would it not be better to proceed on it rather than on mere guesswork?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not think the list of books would be of any value without a knowledge of their contents, and the knowledge of Members in Arabic would need to be much more extensive than it is for the information to be of any good.

  His Majesty's Consuls and Labour Statistics.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the fact that no information regarding conditions of labour, wages, and the cost of living appears in the Consular Reports from Austria-Hungary, Havre, and Philadelphia, similar to those from the Consuls in Germany and Chicago, U.S.A.; and whether he will issue instructions to all Consuls in His Majesty's service to supply such information in order to test the value of the trade and its effect upon the people of each country reported upon.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I will consider, in consultation with the Board of Trade, whether any general instructions could be advantageously issued to His Majesty's Consular Officers on the points referred to. In view, however, of the complexity of these subjects and of the fact that the trustworthy information available with regard to them in some districts is frequently very scanty or wholly lacking, it may be that, generally speaking, they are more suited for special inquiry by expert investigators than for treatment in the Annual Reports of His Majesty's Consuls.

  Newfoundland Fisheries.
  MR. CARLILEasked if the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was now in a position to give a definite Answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Gravesend as to laying on the Table the Correspondence between the Colonial Office and Sir Robert Bond, and the Colonial Office and the Newfoundland Government.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Negotiations are still proceeding. I un not in a position to add to the previous Answers to Questions on this subject.

  White Star Company and their Stewards.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the White Star Steamship Company have refused to pay their stewards for working overtime and at dock work, owing to a strike in progress when their steamship "Oceanic" arrived at New York;

  401
  that the men were threatened prosecution unless they obeyed orders, and, after working five days and one night, were paid 10 dollars and 30 cents less than the usual rates, and, although one of these men fell ill and was ordered by the ship's doctor to take rest, the second mate refused to allow this, and the man broke down and is still ill; and whether he can introduce some kind of legislation to prevent the ship's officers from imposing conditions of service upon their employees aboard ship that they could not impose on land.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,: I am informed that although the articles of agreement of the "Oceanic" contained a stipulation that no overtime would be paid, the stewards who worked overtime owing to the strike at New York received gratuities in addition to their regular wages. In the absence of the "Oceanic" I cannot obtain information as to the statement in the second part of the Question, but I am making inquiries. No further legislation affecting merchant shipping is at present in contemplation.

  Australian Tariff on Bicycles.
  MR. A. E. W. MASON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the proposed Australian tariff on English bicycles amounting in many cases to 100 per cent. ad valorem; and whether any, and if any, what, steps are in contemplation to prevent a prohibitive barrier being raised against British goods by a British Colony.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My attention has been called to the now Australian tariff rate on British bicycles, and I have invited representatives of the Coventry Chamber of Commerce to discuss the matter with the Board of Trade, and I understand that it has been arranged that they should see me to-morrow. Steps will be taken in duo course to represent to the Australian Government the views of the British traders in regard to the tariff.

  School Accommodation.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when it is expected that the Return
  402
  dealing with the square-foot basis of accommodation in public elementary schools will be issued.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,: I do not know to what Return the hon. Member is referring; but, as I have already intimated, the fresh consideration of the premises of all the many thousands of elementary schools that are on the eight-foot basis and the reassessment of their accommodation in a manner that shall afford not less than nine square-feet for infants and ten for older scholars must be a slow process, and I cannot yet name a date by which we can hope for it to be completed.
  MR. GRETTON: Was any action taken by the Board of Education on the lines indicated before the issue of the Return?
  MR. McKENNA: There is no Return of all the schools, but each school is being dealt with separately.

  Welsh Secondary Education Grants.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, if the preliminary and extended course for secondary education are eliminated, there will still remain a difference of £2 5s. a head on the ordinary course in favour of England as compared with the corresponding figure for Wales per pupil, the total grants for the course in England being £20, as against £17 15s. for Wales; and, if so, whether, seeing that the Welsh ratepayer will pay more per head on secondary scholars than the ratepayer in England, and that there are more secondary scholars in proportion to the population in Wales than in England, he will consider the desirability of reconsidering the proposed differentiation of Government grants for secondary education.
  The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper—
  MR. REES: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether, under the recent notification of his Department in this behalf, it is only in the fourth year that the Welsh secondary school pupil will attain the maximum grant of £5, which the English pupil enjoys from

  403
  the first year of his course; and whether he will reconsider a differentiation by which, in the absence of explanation, the Welsh pupil is prejudiced.
  MR. REES: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether in the ease of Welsh secondary schools no grant is given under the new regulations for certain years of school instruction, whereas in the case of most of the English schools payment is made for all the years of the course; and whether he will reconsider this differentiation, in order to the equal treatment of Welsh schools.
  MR. REES: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether, under the recent regulations for secondary education, no grant is allowed in Wales for children under twelve, while in England grants are provided for such children; and whether, if this be the case, he will reconsider this differentiation in order to redress the inequality established.
  MR. REES: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the amount of secondary school teaching in Wales is, proportionately to population, much greater than in England; whether, if that be the case, the Welsh rate paper is unfairly mulcted when grants are allocated upon a basis of population instead of upon the basis of the work actually done; and whether he will reconsider the allocation already made in view to a fairer distribution as between Wales and England in this behalf.
  MR. McKENNA: In reply to this and the four following Questions, my hon. friend, as I have already stated, is under a misapprehension in instituting these comparisons between the grants paid on account of secondary schools in England and Wales respectively. The share of the amount allotted to Wales is based not on population, but on the actual grants paid to Wales for this purpose in the last three years.
  MR. REESasked whether it was the case that grants were not paid in Wales to children until they reached the age of twelve, and whether subsequently to that date they did not draw less in proportion than England; further, whether, seeing that only two out of 100 Welsh schools
  404
  failed to earn the full normal grant whereas one in four in England failed, it was not advisable that some arrangement should be made whereby the Welsh schools instead of being penalised for greater efficiency should be put on an equality with similar schools in England.
  MR. McKENNA: My hon. friend is mistaken. These grants are not paid to the children, but to the schools, and it has been determined that Wales on the whole is entitled to one-eleventh of the grant England as a whole is entitled to.
  MR. REES: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that I meant paid on account of, and not to, the children, and may I ask him further whether the misapprehension under which I labour in this matter is not shared by the Welsh people, and particularly by those who learnt arithmetic in his own schools?
  MR. McKENNA: Here again my hon. friend is mistaken. This misapprehension was shared by a large number of persons in Wales, but they have long since been convinced of their error.
  MR. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in what way he has acquired the knowledge that all who shared what he calls my misapprehension have now lost it, and whether it is not the case that grants to Welsh intermediate schools work out at 20s. a head as against 22s. in England in the case in which the comparison is least unfavourable to Wales?
  MR. McKENNA: No, Sir. My hon. friend is mistaken in that.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: On what basis is the one eleventh made out, is it population?
  MR. McKENNA: On the basis of the actual amount which has been expended for these purposes in the two countries for the last three years.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Which two countries?
  MR. McKENNA: England and Wales.

  Garforth School.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I beg to ask the President

  405
  of the Board of Education why the overcrowding of the Garforth parochial school cannot be met by the transference of those children to the council school who, in the opinion of the managers of the parochial school, can be most conveniently transferred; whether there was in fact any risk of overcrowding after October 1st; on what grounds the Board have decided that the children in Standards III. and IV. should be removed to the council school; whether he considers it educationally desirable that the voluntary school should consist of the highest and lowest standards only; and whether the direction of the Board is given under Section 7 (3) of the Education Act, 1902, or under Article 53 of the Code.
  MR. McKENNA: As the Garforth council school is a school for older scholars only, it was necessary that the children selected for transference should be the older children who could be conveniently taught in the council school. As the total number of scholars on the books of the parochial schools for the month of June was 414, and the recognised accommodation is 352, I presume that if some re-organisation did not take place there would certainly be overcrowding, if not on the 1st October, at any rate for a considerable part of the school year. The Board have decided that Standards I. to III. only are to be continued in the mixed department of the parochial school, the children above Standard III. being taught in the council school. The voluntary school will not, therefore, consist of the highest and lowest standards only, as the hon. Baronet suggests. The Board are proceeding in this case under both of the provisions referred to by the hon. Baronet.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONasked what power the Board of Education had to override the right of parents to send their children to what school they pleased so long as there was sufficient accommodation.
  MR. McKENNA: The Board are proceeding under Section 7 (3) of the Education Act of 1902, and also under the Code.
  MR. CARLILEasked if it was not proposed to transfer to the council school many more children than were required to reduce the attendance in the
  406
  parochial school to the recognised accommodation.
  MR. McKENNAsaid an alteration of the buildings would be required to convert the school into an infant and junior school, and additional accommodation would be provided for the infants.

  Merionethshire Education Dispute.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will now lay upon the Table the correspondence with the county council of Merionethshire with reference to the payment of teachers' salaries.
  MR. McKENNA: Yes, Sir.

  Land Tax Commissioners.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury for what purpose an addition of about five thousand gentlemen was made to the numbers of the Land Tax Commissioners in December last.
  Captain NORTON: The Land Tax Commissioners Act of 1906, under which the now Commissioners were appointed, was introduced in accordance with the usual practice of bringing in a Bill of this nature early in each new Parliament, in order to replenish from time to time the number of Land Tax Commissioners. The Commissioners appointed were, in accordance with the usual practice, selected by Members of Parliament on a Resolution of the House of Commons passed after the Second Reading of the Bill; the selection of the Commissioners and the number to be appointed being matters for the discretion of the individual Members.
  MR. GRETTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Leicester eighty out of eighty-four Commissioners appointed were of one political complexion?
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I am not aware, of that.
  MR. GRETTON: What was the reason for appointing the unprecedented number of 5,000?
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I have answered that.
  MR. GRETTON: Were all the appointments made on the recommendation of Members of this House?
  CAPTAIN NORTON: That is so.
  LORD R. CECIL: Was it only Liberal Members who were intrusted with this duty?
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I am not aware, but I believe it was all Members of Parliament.
  LORD R. CECIL: I had no communication on the subject at any rate.

  Scottish Leaving-Certificate Examinations.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will say what was the object of changing the date of leaving-certificate examinations from June to April; and whether that change was made with the approval of local education authorities and of teachers.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,: The object of the change of date of the written examination was to give full opportunity for collating the evidence of the written papers with the estimate of the pupils' attainments as arrived at by the teachers, and for such oral examination as may prove necessary when the two kinds of testimony are in conflict. Incidentally the change will admit of the results being communicated to the schools at a reasonably early date in spite of the much longer time which they now take to prepare. The change of date was announced by circular to the schools on the 15th May last, and from such expressions of opinion as have reached the Department since that date they have no reason to suppose that the change does not meet with the approval of the great majority of the managers and teachers concerned.

  Holme Lacy Charities.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Primo Minister whether he is aware that six tenants have notice to leave their holdings because it is alleged that they are the friends of tenants previously given notice to leave their farms for participation in petitioning the
  408
  Charity Commissioners to hold an inquiry into the administration of the Holme Lacy charities, and at which inquiry most of the allegations were proved to be true, whereby one late employee of the chief trustee, who usually acted without consulting the others, was found to have been appointed a pension at an age a little more than forty years, although this charity was left for decayed men, and at the inquiry this person, who has two farms of more than 340 acres, agreed to give up the pension, which he has drawn for more than nineteen years; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction prevails in the district, whore the new trustees appointed are likely to be composed of employees of the trustee above referred to; and whether he can introduce legislation early next session that will prevent honest and worthy farmers from being evicted from their tenures because they have performed a public duty.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to reply to this. The hon. Member's question has been dealt with in the Answers which were given to him on 31st July and 21st August.† The Charity Commissioners are not aware that tenants have received notice to quit. It is believed that the schemes which the Commissioners propose to publish will be generally accepted as satisfactory. In framing these schemes the Commissioners desire to provide that a majority of the new trustees shall be elected by local bodies who would not be restricted in their choice of representatives. I understand that the Government are not prepared to undertake legislation of the kind suggested.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: Will the hon. gentleman inquire from Lord Chesterfield if he will withdraw those notices, seeing that those men have acted on behalf of the public generally?
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I will communicate the wishes of the hon. Member to the Charity Commissioners.

  The Hague Conference.
  SIR RANDAL CREMER: I wish to ask the Prime
  † See (4) Debates, clxxix., 943–4; clxxxi., 828–9.

  409
  Minister if his attention has been called to the conflicting reports which have been published concerning the policy of the British representatives at The Hague Conference, and the decisions arrived at by that body, and whether he will as speedily as possible circulate among Members of this House an official statement of the resolutions agreed to by the Conference.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,: I have noticed several conflicting reports in various organs of the Press since the Conference met in June last; but I am not aware to which of these my hon. friend particularly refers. A largo number of questions are now under the consideration of the Conference at various stages, and it would not be courteous to that body to adopt the course which my hon. friend suggests. I can only refer to the Answers given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, and to the statement that Papers will be laid in due course when the Conference has terminated its labours. I am satisfied that when these Papers are placed fully before the country it will be seen that our delegates have acquitted themselves not only to the credit of the country, but to the advantage of the cause of peace.

  The Prorogation.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I bog to ask what time the right hon. Gentleman proposes to ask the House to meet to-morrow for the purposes of Prorogation.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Twelve o'clock.

PUBLIC HEALTH (REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD) BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith—(Mr. Burns); considered, and agreed to.
NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith—(Mr. Burns); considered, and agreed to.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (INSURANCE COMPANIES) BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith—(Mr. Lloyd-George); considered, and agreed to.
IRISH LAND (No. 2) BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland); considered, and agreed to.
NEW BILL.
  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To regulate and amend Criminal Procedure in Scotland, and to extend the Jurisdiction and Powers of the Sheriff in Summary Criminal Cases," presented by The Lord Advocate; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 338.]

CABS AND STAGE CARRIAGES (LONDON) BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
First Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 1, line 23 to leave out Clause 2,"
Read a second time.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,, in moving that the House do disagree with the Lords in their Amendment to maintain the privilege cab system at the London railway stations, said that he hoped those in another place would see on reflection that the public interest had been fully safeguarded in this matter. The cabmen had given positive assurances that they could and would serve the public interest adequately and faithfully. In the next place, the Home Secretary had reserved power under the Bill to relieve in whole or in part any station in the metropolis; and it would be his duty, if there were any breakdown in the system to the prejudice of the public, to use his powers. The opposition to the Bill had come entirely from the railway companies, whose

411
interests must come after those of the general public. Those who argued that public interests were endangered by the Bill had not considered the question, which had been under Parliamentary consideration for fifteen years. Twelve years ago a Departmental Committee reported in favour of the abolition of the privilege system, and last year a representative Committee went exhaustively into the question and reported unanimously in favour of abolition. On the division on this clause only twenty-four members voted against it and 176 for it. In these circumstances the Government had no option but to ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment. If the Lords insisted on rejecting this clause, on them must rest the full responsibility for the loss of the Bill and its many valuable provisions framed in the public interest.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of were given by the Cabmen's Trade Union, which represented about 8,000 men. But the union had no power to compel the men to go to a railway station. With all the desire in the world, it was impossible for the union to secure an adequate supply of cabs. It was not quite correct to say that the opposition came only from the railway companies; but, even if it were so, surely those who should protest were those who knew? He quits admitted that, from the point of view of the Cabmen's Union, this was a capital Bill; but the interests of the members of the union and those of the public did not coincide. There was a statement in The Times the other day from a man who pointed out that at Waterloo, whore the open system prevailed, it was impossible to got a cab on arrival, and that it was necessary to rush a vehicle which was bringing a passenger to the departure platform.
MR. GLADSTONE: That is nonsense.
SIR F. BANBURYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had tried the experiment. The real origin of this Bill was the demand of the London Im-
412
proved Cab Company for taximeters, and had nothing whatever to do with the privilege cab system.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the hon. Baronet was quite mistaken. This question had been going on ever since the Committee reported, and at that time he announced in the House and elsewhere that if he could not come to an agreement with the railway companies on the privilege system a Bill would be brought in. That was over a year ago.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not deny that the right hon. Gentleman said he would bring in a Bill, but, as these two matters were quite distinct, he ought to have brought in a Bill relating to taximeters and another relating to the privilege system. The only interest those who were opposing the Bill had was to ensure that there should be a sufficient supply of cabs at the stations, and he hoped the Lords would insist on their Amendment.
MR. REESexpressed the opinion that it would be difficult, unless there was some system like this, to make a proper provision of cabs at the great termini. He was sure this case was prejudiced by the name privileged, but he regarded it as a privilege, not for the cabmen, but for the public, and, in saying this, he desired his right hon. friend the Home Secretary to understand that he was not speaking on behalf of the railway companies, but as one of the public, who knew what it was to find a good cab ready as one did at Euston and what it was to find no cab as one did at Waterloo. He wanted to see the Bill, which was an excellent one, passed, but he could not see that this abolition of the privileged cab system formed an integral part of it. He knew how slow cabmen were to adopt new systems or even to discover a new terminus. Even now they hardly realised the existence of Marylebone, and cabs there would be hard to get but for the privileged system. It took cabmen long to get accustomed to a new station. Every cabman was conservative just as every faro was, or was expected to be, liberal. He thought the Bill might very well stand without this provision, as it came back from another place. But he did not want to see it lost.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid the London Members were, by an overwhelming majority, in favour of the abolition of the privilege system, and he thought another place would be well advised in reconsidering their decision.
Question put, and agreed to.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill.
Committee nominated of,—Mr. Secretary Gladstone, Mr. Lough, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. Pickersgill, and Mr. Herbert Samuel.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)

MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTION FOR PROPELLING POWER) BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 1, line 18, agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 1, line 18, to leave out the word 'shall' and insert, the word 'may,'"
Read a second time.
MR. NAPIERhoped this Amendment would not be agreed to. Under it a clergyman might forbid the use of his church for the celebration of a marriage with a deceased wife's sister. In the present position of the Church of England that was quite a wrong thing. The right of marriage in the parish church was a common law right of Englishmen; what right had the clergy to withhold that right from people who belonged to the Church of England? He denied entirely that the clergy represented the Church of England, or
414
that they were the Church of England. Parliament having laid it down that this was a fit and proper marriage to be celebrated in a parish church, a clergyman had no right to refuse his church for that purpose.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONmade an earnest appeal to the House not to endanger the Bill. Under the Bill marriage with a deceased wife's sister would be made legal from to-morrow, and it would also be made legal retrospectively. The point involved in the Amendment was a very small thing, and he did not believe that in practice it would have any effect at all, because he felt quite certain that in two or three years the whole matter would have dropped, people would have forgotten that these marriages were over forbidden, and he did not believe that any clergyman would refuse the use of his church—or, at any rate, it would be a very rare thing for him to do so. If they did not insert these Amendments of the Lords, they would run a very great danger of losing the Bill.
Lords Amendment agreed to.
LORD R. CECILasked the promoters whether they would not strike out the whole of this proviso. It was perfectly valueless and otiose.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONpreferred to retain the Bill in the form in which it had been agreed to by the Lords.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 2, line 27, after Clause 3 to insert a new clause ('Liability incurred through ecclesiastical censure),'"
Read a second time.
MR. ESSEXlooked upon this as a serious Amendment, and hoped it would not be agreed to. The promoters seemed prepared to throw everything to the winds in order to secure their Bill. This concession was not only weak, but wholly wrong in principle. It was pandering to episcopal intolerance. Many, himself included, were wholly indifferent to episcopal censure and dislike, and would sleep undisturbed in spite of it, but there were others for whom they had a

415
profound respect, who were not equally insusceptible to such influence, and he appealed on their behalf. He hoped the House would not accept the Amendment, for it was unjust to lessen to the clergy the liberty which the Government proposed to give to the ordinary person by this Bill.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that those who had had the conduct of the Bill had always maintained that they would never sanction or accept any part of a measure which would inflict injury upon the clergy or upon members of the Church of England. After the battle they had gone through and the difficulties they had faced it was rather severe for his hon. friend behind him to say that their conduct had been weak and that they were pandering to the Church. What did they, who were Nonconformist, care for ecclesiastical censures? It conferred no temporal loss upon any individual subjected to it, and what the real meaning of "ecclesiastical censure" was he failed to comprehend. The question, however, the House had got to decide was whether they were going to pass the Bill or not, and on behalf of the Government and those who supported the measure he appealed to the House to put no obstacle in its way.
MR. STEWARTasked if it were perfectly clear that ecclesiastical censure did not carry with it deprivation, because if it did the person subjected to such censure would suffer civil disability as a consequence. He would be glad to suggest that they should keep to the text of the Amendment as it stood at present, but add the words "no such censure shall carry with it civil disability." If it did not carry with it civil disability his objection would cease.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONreminded the House that the Archbishop had stated in another place the day before that the episcopacy would endeavour to carry out the measure, should it become law, to the best of their ability. He thanked the Government for having given facilities for the Bill, and the supporters of the measure in that House for their unselfish and ungrudging support.
LORD R. CECILsaid he thought the hon. Member was wrong when he said
416
the Bishops had accepted the Bill, because they divided against the Third Reading.
Lords Amendment agreed to.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)said that most of these Amendments were purely drafting Amendments, and there were one or two of substance, but they were Amendments which carried out things which he himself had promised before the Bill had left that House.
Lords Amendments agreed to.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Amendments were considerable in number and would take a long time to read. He would suggest therefore that they should be taken by the House en bloc. They had been most carefully considered and the Government were prepared to accept them.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he had not the slightest intention of opposing the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to take the Amendments en bloc. He thought, however, upon the question that the Amendments be considered he might be permitted to make some observations upon the methods which had been adopted by the Government to pass this Bill. The House would recollect that when they had finished passing the Patents Bill proper at between two and three o'clock in the morning the Consolidation Bill was brought before them and passed, twenty clauses being taken at a time. They did not object to the Bill going through, but they pointed out that the Consolidation Bill was one which ought to be considered by a Select Committee. That course, however, was not followed, yet had the Bill been introduced earlier in the session, as it ought to have been, it could then have been fully and

417
properly considered by a Committee. As it was, however, the House of Lords, having passed the Patents Bill, were called upon two or three minutes later to consider a Consolidation Bill. There also, in that House, the Bill was not going through the proper ordeal of a Select Committee, but the Lords had placed in it, he would not like to say how many, Amendments, all of which had been agreed to in a very few minutes. However, he was quite prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that these Amendments had been carefully considered by the Government, and he did not propose to object to their being taken en bloc, but at the same time he felt bound to point out that in neither House had the Bill passed through stages through which it was desirable that such Bills should pass.
Lords Amendments agreed to.

CABS AND STAGE CARRIAGES (LONDON) BILL.
Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—(Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)
MR. SPEAKERinformed the House that until a message was received from the other House in reference to the two Bills that were sent up to them yesterday the business of the House could not be proceeded with. He, therefore, proposed to leave the Chair until such message arrived.
The sitting was suspended at a quarter past Four of the Clock.
The House resumed at a quarter to Eight of the Clock.

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
MR. SPEAKER: I have to report to the House that a message has been received from the House of Lords to the following effect:—
That they do not insist on certain of their Amendments to the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill to which this House has disagreed; that they do not insist on one of their Amendments, but propose an Amendment in lieu thereof to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
418
That they agree to certain other Amendment's made by this House to the Amendments made by the Lords without Amendment, and to one other Amendment made by this House with Amendments to which they desire the concurrence of this House. That they disagree to certain other Amendments made by this House, for which disagreement they assign their reason.
MR. BIRRELLsaid there was nothing in the Amendments which had been made in another place to the Commons Amendments which need occupy their time or prevent their agreeing to them. They related entirely to the machinery of the Bill, which, be its merits or its demerits what they might, they otherwise loft as it was. Therefore, he invited the House to agree to the Lords Amendments.
Lords' reason for disagreeing to certain Amendments made by this House, and Lords Amendment instead of the Amendment to which this House hath disagreed, and Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, to be considered forthwith—(Mr. Birrell.)
Lords' reason and Amendments considered, and agreed to.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
MR. SPEAKER: I have to report that the following message has been received from the House of Lords:—
That they do not insist on certain of their Amendments to the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill to which the Commons have disagreed; that they do not insist on certain other of their Amendments, but propose others in lieu thereof to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
That they agree to certain of the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendments made by the Lords to the said Bill without Amendment; that they disagree to one other of the Amendments, but propose an Amendment in lieu thereof, to which they desire the concurrence of this House, and disagree to one other of the Amendments, for which disagreement they assign their reason.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,said since the House rose last night he had spared no time and no labour to effect conciliation, and he believed and trusted that he had been and should be successful in this. There were six Amendments which had come down from the House of Lords, and he would state generally what they were. The first was an Amendment to Clause 21, to insert after the word "allotment," "and no dwelling house shall be erected for occupation on any allotment of less than three acres." He proposed to ask the House to amend that Amendment by substituting "one acre" for "three acres." An Amendment had come down to them agreed by the Government in the other House on the subject of home farms. These words would be inserted in Clause 30, "or form part of the home farm, attached to, and usually occupied with the mansion house." He would move to agree to those words. On the subject of ancient monuments, of which he had spoken yesterday, another Amendment had come down to which he should move to agree. It omitted the words which were formerly in, "of historic interest," which might cover battlefields and other things that were not being dealt with. In the first schedule, a mere drafting Amendment had been inserted which he would also ask the House to agree to—in line 6, page 25, to insert "except document of title." Then there were the words which were inserted in Committee upstairs, at the desire of his friend the Member for Nowcastle-under-Lyme, under a clause of the Schedule, "assessment to rating and taxation." He had made a gallant fight for those words, which were not his own. He felt that he could no longer insist upon them, and, as he had also explained to the House on Report, he believed them to be of no importance, and had no meaning where they were inserted. Finally, another Amendment came down to them substituting arbitration for valuation in the hiring under the Schedule. That was not an Amendment which he could recommend the House to accept, but in place of it he would propose an Amendment which would give to the sitting tenant, the farmer to be displaced, the right to arbitration which he at present possessed under the Agricultural Holdings Act, but of which, under the terms of the Schedule, he might have
420
been deprived as the Bill stood. Those were the whole of the Amendments which came to them from the House of Lords, and he asked the House to deal with them as he suggested.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords' reasons for disagreeing to one of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments, and Lords Amendments to the Bill, and Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments be considered forth with."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords reason and Amendments considered.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 10, line 12, after the word 'allotment' to insert the words, erect a dwelling on not less than three acres,'"
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURT MR. HARCOURT moved to substitute "one" for "three."
MR. CHAPLINsaid he was opposed to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman in, and personally he was in favour of the Amendment of the Lords. He was bound to say that it seemed to him that three acres was an area small enough upon which to erect a dwelling.
Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In page 15, line 27, to insert the words, 'or form part of the home farm attached to, and usually occupied with, the mansion house,'"
Agreed to.
Lords Amendment—
"In the First Schedule, page 25, line 40, to insert the following new paragraph:—'The matters to be referred to a valuer before the ending of any tenancy created by compulsory hiring, shall, on the application of either party, be ordered by the Board to be determined by arbitration instead of by a valuer, provided that any costs of the arbitration which the Board may deem to have been incurred by reason of such matters being referred to arbitration instead of to a valuer shall be paid by the party applying for arbitration,'"—
Read a second time.
MR. HARCOURTsaid that it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment of the Lords, because it

421
violated the whole principle that they had asserted from the first—that the rent under hiring must be fixed by valuation. He, therefore, proposed to leave out all the words of the Lords Amendment and to substitute another Amendment providing that, if the land hired was in the occupation of the tenant, he might by notice in writing served on the council before the determination of his tenancy, require that any claim by him against the council might be referred to arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, and not by valuation under this Bill. This gave the tenant the same right to arbitration for compensation on quitting his holding now obtainable by him under the Agricultural Holdings Acts.
MR. CHAPLINregretted very much that the right hon. Gentleman had felt himself to be unable to accept the Lords' Amendment. He could not conceive why there should be this difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman said he had been opposed to arbitration in this respect throughout the proceedings on this Bill, and that was perfectly true. But what was the only ground upon which objection was taken to this proposal? Simply the ground of cost. By the Amendment inserted by the Lords which they were now considering the right hon. Gentleman had been deprived of the last shred of excuse for objecting to the proposal. The Amendment affected equally the owner and the tenant; and he could only suppose that, in the opinion of some of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, the landlord was of such a dreadful and evil disposition, that the right hon. Gentleman could not screw up his courage to grant the landlord even this little justice. The benefit of the Amendment was left to the sitting tenant. He had always felt that the case of the sitting tenant had not received sufficient attention, though the Opposition had moved Amendments providing that, when deprived of his holding to promote small holdings, he should be entitled to every compensation that he would have been entitled to if he had received his notice to quit otherwise. The Amendment, therefore, would place the sitting tenant in the position he ought to have occupied in the Bill from the outset. He had no choice but to accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, for he could not move an Amendment with any hope of
422
success. But he could not refrain from pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman had addressed the House in different tones from those which he adopted the previous night. Since the right hon. Gentleman made that speech he had carefully searched all the Amendments in order to discover any of the wrecking, destructive character attributed to the House of Lords the previous evening. He had been unable to find one; and he thought that the best refutation of the charges made against the Lords was to be found in the attitude they had maintained throughout these proceedings—namely, a desire to make the measure useful and workable. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] Some hon. Members opposite by that exhibition intended to convey that they did not believe it. He did not know of a single Amendment with regard to which hon. Gentlemen had been able to prove the slightest intention of wrecking the Bill. It was easy to make insinuations and charges of that kind but it was not so easy to prove them. He would not say anything further, because at the close of their proceedings he wished to say nothing of a controversial character, and he would conclude by saying he was heartily glad—and he was sure that opinion was shared by all his friends sitting behind him—that there was a reasonable prospect of the Bill passing into law.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,thought that something should be said in justification of the action of the Government in refusing to accept this Amendment. The Amendment proposed arbitration instead of valuation, and the parties had to apply to the Board of Agriculture for an order. The Amendment also provided that the parties should be called upon to pay the extra cost as between arbitration and valuation, and the Board would have to assess the difference. That meant that a Board sitting in London would have to consider whether in a particular case the cost of a valuation had been increased by the substitution of arbitration. That would be a very difficult task, indeed. It had been said by those interested in the opposite point of view that something should be said by way of explanation of the Bill on the question as it affected the tenants. As the Bill stood, the valuer would have to consider two things affecting the interest

423
of the tenant. In the first place, the sitting tenant called upon to give up his land for small holdings would have the ordinary rights of an outgoing tenant in regard to his improvements. That compensation under the existing law would he assessed by arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act. But the tenant might conceivably have a claim for severance, if he were turned out before he had completed his period of occupation. Under the Bill, that claim would be dealt with by the valuer. It had been urged in another place that such claims ought also to be submitted to arbitration, so far as the tenants were concerned, but he thought those Lords who had discussed the point with the representatives of the Government were disposed to agree that these claims for severance would be very rare indeed, and that it was not worth while to take them out of the valuer's competence, and put them into other hands. The Government believed that the Bill should pass as it stood in that respect. There was only one other point on which he desired to make some observations, and that was with regard to the duties of the valuers. It had been pointed out that as a matter of law the valuer was not bound to receive evidence, and that the difference between the valuer and the arbitrator was that the arbitrator was a judge and that the valuer was a man of business. But that did not moan that the valuer would not make proper inquiries; the schedule of the Bill expressly provided that the valuer should be entitled to receive information on any point affecting the value of the land. The valuer must not go down to the land, walk over it, and thon give his opinion founded on his views and theories as to what it ought to be worth. There had been some apprehension expressed in another place as to how the valuers would perform their duties. They would be instructed by the Board of Agriculture that they must perform their duties in a way which would be likely to give satisfaction to the parties. The difference between a valuation and an arbitration would in practice be greatly minimised. With regard to the tenant's right to arbitration, the Government proposed to leave him the right that he had under the present law.
Lords Amendment disagreed to, and Amendment, in lieu thereof, to the effect stated by Mr. Harcourt, agreed to.

CABS AND STAGE CARRIAGES (LONDON) BILL.
MR. SPEAKER: A message has been received from the House of Lords to the effect that they do not insist on their Amendment to the Cabs and Stage Carriages (London) Bill, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose other Amendments in lieu thereof, in which they desire the concurrence of this House.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. SAMUEL,stated that the House of Lords had not insisted on their Amendment for the excision of the clause abolishing the privilege cab system. After a somewhat prolonged discussion they had been able to make an arrangement with the opponents of the clause, in consequence of which they had withdrawn their opposition to it. The Amendments of the House of Lords were three in number. Two of them were Amendments of little more than form, and would in no way impair the substance of the clause. The third was to limit the operation of the clause to a period of two years. It was with regret that the Government accepted the Amendment; but he would point out that the Select Committee which considered the matter last year recommended that the privilege system should be abolished experimentally for one year. They had now secured a period of two years, and if the experiment was, as they expected, successful, the clause would be continued from year to year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
Lords Amendments to the Bill, instead of the Amendment to which this House hath disagreed, to be considered forthwith (Mr. Herbert Samuel); considered, and agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Resolved, That this House do meet To-morrow, at Twelve o'clock.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th day of July last, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Eight o'clock.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 535. Malta (Report for 1906–1907).
  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Statistical Report of the health of the Navy, for the year 1906.
  INDIA (STATISTICAL ABSTRACT).
  Statistical Abstract relating to British India from 1896–1897 to 1905–1906. Forty-first number.
  TREATY SERIES, NO. 26. (1906).
  Protocol for the Accession of Non-signatory Powers to the Convention of 29th July, 1899, for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 14th July, 1907.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3909. Portugal (Lourenço Marques).
  No. 3910. China (Shari).
  No. 3911. Turkey (Trebizond).
  No. 3912. Italy (South Italy (Supplementary).
  No. 3913. China (Foochow).
  No. 3914. Morocco.
  No. 3915. Russia (Riga).
  No. 3916. China (Tientsin).

  POST OFFICE.
  Agreement between the Post Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of Bulgaria for the exchange of Postal and Telegraph Money Orders.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (BOY SEAMEN).
  Report of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the Supply and Training of Boy Seamen for the Mercantile Marine:—I. Report; II. Minutes of Evidence and Appendix.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Orders under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board, of the following county councils:
  Carnarvon. For amending Confirmation Order setting up a Joint Committee under the Burial Acts, 1853 to 1900.
  Somerset. For uniting parish of Chilton Common with parish of Chilton Trinity to form the parish of Chilton Trinity.

  MOTOR CAR ACTS, 1896 AND 1903.
  Regulation as to restriction of the driving of motor cars on certain roads or parts of roads situate within urban district of Ware, made by the Local Government Board under Section 9 (1) of the Act of 1903.
  Regulation as to the registration of motor cars made by the Local Government Board under Section 6 of the Act of 1896 and Section 7 of the Act of 1903:—London County—For assigning a fourth index mark to the London County Council.
  Regulation as to the registration of motor cars made by the Local Government Board under Section 6 of the Act of 1896 and Section 7 of the Act of 1903:—Smethwick (County Borough)—For assigning index mark to county borough.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890 (COUNTY OF LONDON).
  Statement of modification permitted by the Local Government Board to be made in the London (Providence Place, Poplar) Improvement Scheme, 1901.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  Additional and amending General Orders for the regulation of proceedings under and in pursuance of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  IRISH LAND (NO. 2) BILL.
    PUBLIC HEALTH (REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD) BILL.

      NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS BILL.
      EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL.
      Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  CABS AND STAGE CARRIAGES (LONDON) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to: one Amendment disagreed to, with a reason.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTION FOR PROPELLING POWER) BILL.
    MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.

      PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
      PATENTS AND DESIGNS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
      Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  HOME WORK; PUBLICATIONS.
  Reports, etc., of the Select Committees of the House of Commons communicated (pursuant to message of Thursday last), and to be printed. (No. 218.)
  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  Order made yesterday for Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments to be printed, discharged.

SCOTTISH SMALL HOLDINGS.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, in accordance with private notice, I rise to ask the Lord President of the Council which of the following statements most accurately describes the policy and intentions of the Government in regard to Scottish small holdings—the Lord President's statement in reply to Lord St. Aldwyn, the Scottish crofter Members' letter, the Prime Minister's statement, the letter of Mr. Weir and Mr. Morton to The Times, or the letter of the Master of Elibank of 24th August. I hope that in putting this Question I shall not be thought to be in any way doubting the honesty or straightforwardness of the Answer which was given to the noble Viscount by the Lord
280
President. The Question was asked across the floor of the House and the answer given on the spur of the moment, possibly at the very time the letter from the crofter Members was being sent in to the Prime Minister. The noble Earl the Lord President stated, in his reply, that the crofter Members supported the policy of His Majesty's Government in withdrawing the Bill. We then had the crofter Members' letter, signed by Mr. Harmsworth, Member for Caithness; by Mr. Morton, Member for Sutherland; by Mr. Weir, Member for Ross and Cromarty; and by Mr. Ainsworth, Member for Argyll. In this letter these gentlemen stated that it was their belief that the open door should be taken advantage of, and they definitely supported the view that the Government were to proceed with the crofter legislation. On the subject of the Government's tactics with regard to the House of Lords no opinion was expressed. Next came the statement of the Prime Minister, who, although he had received the letter of the crofter Members, declared that those Members agreed with the policy and with the tactics of His Majesty's Government. I would venture to press this point. The tactics of His Majesty's Government must necessarily refer to their tactics as regards the House of Lords. These crofter Members had only the day before sent the Prime Minister a letter in which they said they approved of going on with this Bill, and it would have been, of course, impossible for them to have made the volte face suggested. Then we had the letter of the two crofter Members Mr. Weir and Mr. Morton, absolutely standing fast to what they had said; and, finally, as the last act in this drama, we had the letter of the Master of Elibank, in which he stated that the Prime Minister and Lord Crewe had considerable ground for feeling that the policy of the Government had met with the approval of the bulk of the northern Members. The introduction by the Master of Elibank of the term "northern Members" and what he calls "non-Highland Members" constitute the drawing of a red herring across the trail with the object of leading people in the south of Britain to believe that the crofter Members have either gone back upon their letters of last week or that there are other crofter Members

281
who believe in the policy of the Government. I submit that the crofter Members are opposed to the policy of His Majesty's Government, and I beg to ask my Question in view of the great firework display by Members of the Government which took place in the country on Saturday last on the question of the House of Lords.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, my noble friend has made full use of the powers which your Lordships freely grant to those who desire to raise a subject which is not on the Paper, and he will, I am sure, excuse me if I reply somewhat briefly to his Question. The form of the Question is rather singular, because the noble Lord asks me which of several statements most accurately describes the attitute of the crofter Members. I should have thought that that question should be addressed, not to me, but to the Members themselves. But, so far as I can, although I must say the question does not seem to me to be one of great public interest, I will endeavour to reply to it. In my judgment all the five statements to which the noble Lord has alluded represent with perfect accuracy the general situation. The first of those in point of time was the letter which it is said was addressed to the Prime Minister by various Members of Parliament. I have personally no knowledge of that letter. I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen it. It was mentioned in one of those columns of the newspapers devoted to political gossip, of which there are now so many; but I take it that it was a private communication, and I confess I know nothing whatever about it. But if such a letter was written—and I dare say it was—it seems to me very natural that it should have expressed, on behalf of those qualified to speak for those counties, the desire that it might be possible to pass the measure so far as it included the provisions relating to the crofting counties. We all agree with that as an abstract proposition. We would all, I presume, have certainly desired to see those provisions become law; but it is important to point out that when noble Lords opposite made what, I suppose, was a kind of offer to
282
pass those particular provisions, their offer was qualified by the statement that those provisions would be passed with some alterations; and long and bitter experience in this House has taught me what the effect upon a measure is of the slight alterations which noble Lords opposite are accustomed to make in Bills which we bring in. Therefore, I think it is important to observe that whatever may have been the views of the Members for the crofting counties as regards the bringing in of this measure, it by no means follows that what would have been done in your Lordships' House would have satisfied them. The next in point of time was the reply which I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, who asked me—
"Did the Members for the crofting counties who waited on the Prime Minister complain that the Bill had been eviscerated, or did they ask him to proceed with the crofter clauses of the Bill?"
To that I replied—
"I believe, so far as my information goes—it is not very extensive, though I hope, so far as it does go, it is accurate—that those who are most qualified to speak for the northern parts of Scotland are quite willing to combine with those who represent other counties of Scotland in supporting the action of His Majesty's Government."
I still believe that to be a perfectly accurate statement, and it is not in any degree incompatible with anything that may have been written by these gentlemen to the Prime Minister. Then came the Prime Minister's statement, and my right hon. friend was good enough to confirm what I said on that occasion. Then two gentlemen—Mr. Weir and Mr. Morton—wrote to The Times stating their views. There, again, there is nothing incompatible with what I said in this House. On the contrary, their statement, if it does not actually bear out, is, at any rate, not incompatible with, the particular words which I used in describing the opinions of Members for the North of Scotland on this subject. Lastly, there is the letter of the Master of Elibank, which speaks for itself, and which, so far as I am aware, is perfectly accurate. In fact, if I may say so, it appears to me that the various statements made by the five people, or more, none of whom had compared notes on

283
the subject, are quite remarkably compatible and accurate for a discussion of this kind. I hope I have given the noble Lord the information he requires.

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
The further Amendments made by the Commons to Lords Amendments, and Commons reasons for disagreeing to certain Amendments last made by the Lords, considered (according to Order).
THE EARL OF CREWE: The Commons disagree to the Lords Amendment, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "of the land," for the reason that the words are unnecessary. I beg to move that this House do not insist on its Amendment.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The Commons disagree to the Lords Amendments, in page 1, line 9, and to the Amendments in page 3, line 3, line 11, and lines 17 and 18. Your Lordships will remember that you inserted an Amendment in page 1, line 9, providing that the Estates Commissioners should pay to a landlord "compensation for the loss which would be sustained by him by being deprived of his land." The original Bill provided that the Commissioners should pay the "value." The reason given by the Commons for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment is that, having regard to other provisions of the Act, compensation ought not to be paid to owners in accordance with the principles of the Lands Clauses Acts. I beg to move, first, that the House do not insist on its Amendment in page 1, line 9.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETONthought they could hardly pass from this Amendment without registering their regret and disappointment at the action of the
284
Government. No Bill ever came before the House which appeared to have received less consideration with respect to some provisions. This Amendment was no exception to the rule. There had been practically no defence from those in charge of the Bill of the clause as it came up from the Commons. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was the first to recognise that the words as they came from the Commons giving the settlement of value to the Commissioners who took the land without appeal left the matter in a position for which there was no precedent in the English law. On this question of what the landlord was to get, all their Lordships asked was exactly that which would be obtained in England and Scotland; that was to say, compensation for the loss of his land. The word "value" did not include what would have been included in the word "compensation"—consideration for severance from other property, or damage done by its being compulsorily taken. There was nothing to show whether it meant value to the landlord or to the purchasing tenant. He deeply regretted that His Majesty's Government had chosen to refuse guiding words for this very important Commission. They were to-day at the last stage of the Bill. The noble Earl had endeavoured to meet them as far as possible. On some considerable points he had recognised the weight of the arguments addressed to their Lordships. They were now fact; to face with the difficulty of insisting on that which they believed to be absolutely right and just, or leaving themselves in the hands of the Commissioners in a matter in which they were denied what was given in the English Bill. The word "compensation" was good in the case of the English landlord and tenant, but not apparently for the Irish landlord in like conditions. He asked the Government to indicate the purpose of insisting on the world "value" The words as they stood seemed to leave the Commissioners free to put a sinister interpretation on the word "value" and to decide the price according to what a tenant could make out of the land, ignoring the value which the landlord might have realised. He did not propose to ask their Lordships to insist upon the Amendment; but if he did so he believed

285
he would have the support not only of all interested in Irish land, but of those who had shown by their action on the English Bill that they thought that this word "compensation" should be inserted in the Irish measure. He hoped that the noble Earl would make clear that the intentions of the Government were what he believed them to be, that the word should be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am glad that the noble Viscount does not ask the House to press the insertion of the word "compensation." I think I have explained before that we have throughout preferred the word "value" to "compensation," because we do not desire to apply the principles of purchase under the Lands Clauses Act to the special purchases which are to take place for the purpose of this Bill. The noble Viscount altogether omitted to mention what we have done as regards Clause 6, and when you are comparing Ireland with England it is important to remember that there is in this Bill what certainly does not exist in any other Act—an absolute prohibition to take land when it can be shown to interfere with the amenities or value of the adjoining property. I think this ought to have been mentioned when the noble Viscount was comparing the treatment of the two countries. I should have thought that landlords would receive complete protection under the very wide provisions which we have placed at the end of Clause 6. We have always said that we desire the landlord to receive a fair price for his land, and when the noble Viscount asks me if it is to be the value to the vendor, I do not quite understand what he means. Does he mean that if a man can show that he has been receiving for a number of years a particular rent, under no matter what circumstances, for a certain piece of land, he is entitled to assume that this is the permanent and absolute value of the land, and that therefore he ought to be given a sum which for ever and ever will bring him in interest equal to that particular rent? That I is a contention to which I could not subscribe, either in connection with Ireland or anywhere else. But it is
286
undoubtedly true that if a landlord is able to show that a certain rent has been paid for a number of years, and there is reason to suppose that it could be paid for a number of years to come, it must be almost a paramount element in arriving at what we describe as the value of the land. It is certainly not my right hon. friend's intention, or that of any member of the Government, that the landlord should receive anything less than a perfectly fair price for his land.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl complained that my noble friend Lord Midleton had said nothing, in the course of his observations, about the Amendment which His Majesty's Government have made in Clause 6. Let me say at once that I regard that Amendment as a very important one, and I am grateful to His Majesty's Government for having made it; but while that Amendment diminishes the area of the land which can be taken by the Estates Commissioners for the purposes of the Bill, it does not establish the right of the landlord to equitable treatment in respect of the land which can still be taken from him. I have never been able to understand the extraordinary reluctance of His Majesty's Ministers to face the word "compensation" I should have gone the length of saying that wherever the British language is spoken it would be admitted that when a Government takes from any individual by compulsion something which belongs to that individual, the person from whom that something is taken is entitled to compensation. Compensation is the only word which really describes what everybody would admit to be due to the sufferer in such a case. The word occurs throughout the English Bill, and we see no reason why it should not be put into this Bill also. There is one circumstance which we on this side of the House cannot lose sight of. We have had a terrible lesson as to the effect of the use of vague language in all these statutes relating to land in Ireland, and that is why we so strongly prefer a word having a certain amount of precision about it to the extremely vague expression "value" However, I very much prefer the word "value"

287
to the words "fair market value," as they originally stood in the Bill. I feel that after what my noble friend has said it is not necessary to pursue this controversy further. I only desire to make it quite clear that we give up the word "compensation" not because we believe it to be unnecessary, but under duress from His Majesty's Ministers.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think I ought to make it clear that the value, as stated in Clause 1, does not include the bonus. The value is paid for the land, and after that it is declared an estate, and upon that declaration it becomes entitled to receive the bonus; so that the owner gets the value of the land plus the bonus.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first of the Lords Amendments to which the Commons disagree is in page 1, line 9; but that Amendment does not appear on either of the prints before me.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The Lords Amendment on page 1, line 9, was to leave out the words "fair market value thereof" and to insert the words "compensation for the loss which would be sustained by the owner by being deprived thereof."
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: These Papers are in most distressing confusion. Might it not be desirable that the clause as it will run should be read to the House by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, or by the Lord President?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the House does not insist upon its Amendment, the clause will run that the Estates Commissioners shall pay to the landlord "the fair market value."
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If your Lordships do not insist on your Amendment the words "fair market value" will remain; but it will be open to the House, after agreeing not to insist on the Amendment, to leave out the words "fair market."
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, "That the word 'value' stand in place of the words 'compensation for the loss which will be sustained by the owner by being deprived thereof.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I now move that your Lordships do not insist on your Amendments in page 3, line 3, line 11, and lines 17 and 18. This Motion is consequential upon the one to which you have just agreed.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendments."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry, my Lords, that we are experiencing such difficulty in dealing with these various Papers. I do not know whether it will be any consolation when I say that I am told similar difficulties confronted hon. Gentlemen in another place when they were dealing with this matter yesterday. The next Amendment is that which we have been accustomed to speak of as Lord Robertson's Amendment—that is to say, the Amendment inserted for the protection of the planters. Although the Commons disagree with the form of Lord Robertson's Amendment, they concede the principle, and I need not call the attention of the House to the very great importance of this particular concession. The words which we propose to insert at the end of Clause 1, Subsection (3), are—
"Provided that no tenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily which is in the possession or occupation of a bone fide tenant using oaf cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer in accordance with proper methods of husbandry."
My right hon. friend accepted this Amendment with great reluctance, because he thought—and I confess I entirely agree with him—that the provisions as regards new tenants are made practically nugatory by it. I do not desire to say anything more on the subject. We agree to this proviso, and therefore I hope your Lordships will

289
give us due credit for having endeavoured to meet what?, I think, were very unreasonable fears on this particular matter.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
LORD ASHBOURNEasked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill what had been done to safeguard those who had not actually bought their holdings, but had agreed to do so.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Subsections (3), (4), and (5) of Clause 1 will now read as follows—
"(3) Provided that no tenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily which is in the possession or occupation of a bona fide tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer in accordance with proper methods of husbandry.
"(4) For the purpose of this enactment a person shall be deemed to be a tenant notwithstanding that he may have agreed to purchase his holding, if the agreement was entered into after the first day of May, 1907, and if the holding has not become vested in him as a purchaser under the Land Purchase Acts.
"(5) No land shall be acquired compulsorily which is subject to an annuity for the repayment of an advance under the Land Purchase Acts."
The noble Lord will see that any man who has entered into an agreement prior to the first day of May is safeguarded.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid these were rather curious cross references, but if the noble Earl was satisfied that these men were protected he was content.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What is the Motion?
THE EARL OF CREWE: The Motion is that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendments in page 2, line 15 and lines 16 to 21, and that you agree to the insertion of the new Subsection (3) which I have read and which is proposed by the House of Commons.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he could not find in the White Paper any trace of the new Subsections (4) and (5) which the Lord President had read.
THE EARL OF CREWE: There is a doubt whether the words already appear in the print, and I think the safest plan will be to move them in now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will first put the Motion that this House do not insist on their Amendments in page 2, line 15, and lines 16 to 21.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I now put the Motion that the Commons proviso at the end of Clause 1, Subsection (3), be agreed to.
Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I now move the insertion of the two further subsections—Subsections (4) and (5)—which I read to the House a moment ago.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The Commons agree to the Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment in page 3, line 23, but propose to leave out the words "amount of compensation," and to insert the words "the purchase money." This is consequential.
Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The Commons disagree to the Lords Amendment in page 3, line 30, and insist on their Amendment in page 3, line 34, but propose to amend the words so restored by leaving out in line 8 the words "hear in the prescribed manner" and inserting the words "with the assistance of two specially qualified lay assessors nominated by him for the purpose hear," and by inserting in line 10, after "1881," the words "other than the power to direct a valuer to report." Noble Lords will

291
remember that our view was that an appeal on value should go to the Judicial Commissioner, but we offered, if it would make that arrangement more agreeable to noble Lords, to add that the Judicial Commissioner should have the assistance of two qualified lay assessors, who should sit with him rather in the manner in which Trinity House experts sit in the the Admiralty Court. Whether that is an agreeable suggestion to noble Lords opposite I really do not know. We do not set any particular store by it, and should be willing, with perfect confidence to leave this appeal to Mr. Justice Wylie. It is for noble Lords opposite to say whether or not they wish that Mr. Justice Wylie should sit with these two assessors.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
LORD ATKINSONsaid he had been asked to disentangle these Amendments. The noble Lord then proceeded to explain the nature of Amendments which he intended to move to the provision that appeals under the Act should lie to the Judicial Commissioner sitting with two lay assessors. He objected to the assessors, for those who had experience in Ireland of a Judge sitting with assessors were convinced that the system was utterly unsatisfactory. Mr. Justice Wylie was nominated Judicial Commissioner because of the confidence reposed in him by both sides. But there was a power in the Lord Chancellor, under the Purchase Act of 1903, to transfer the duties of the Estates Commissioners to other Judges; and he therefore proposed to move that the power and duties of the Judicial Commissioner should not be exercised or performed by any other Judge appointed as Judicial Commissioner, save during the absence through illness of the Judicial Commissioner. He also proposed to provide an alternative appeal—to confine the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner to questions of value and give an appeal on questions of law and fact to a Judge of Assize of the King's Bench Division. The Judicial Commissioner would have power to appoint a valuer. He intended to propose that that valuer should be produced as a witness and examined as
292
to the reasons for the conclusions he had come to if either of the parties so desired. Throughout the working of the different systems in Ireland it had been considered most objectionable that when a valuer was employed he should not be produced at the witness table, so as to give his reasons for the conclusion he had formed. The system that had hitherto obtained was like that of giving evidence behind the backs of the parties and in the dark. He could not conceive what valid objection there could be to allowing the valuer, after he had reported to the Judge, to be examined and cross-examined as to the basis on which he had gone and the principles on which he had acted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord's Amendments are not on the Paper and I desire to make a suggestion to secure the orderly putting of these Questions. The first point is: Will your Lordships insist on your Amendment in page 3, line 30? It has been moved that the House do not insist on that Amendment. The next point is that the Commons insist on their Amendment in page 3, line 34, but propose to amend the words so restored. If the House accepts as a basis the Commons Amendment in page 3, line 34, I would suggest that the other Amendments should be taken as successive to that Amendment, and should be put in their order one after another separately.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid there was no desire now to have the assessors, and therefore the words "with the assistance of two specially qualified lay assessors nominated by him for the purpose" would go out.
THE EARL OF CREWE: That is so. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, has stated this rather complicated situation with a clearness which I am sure must have appealed to all your Lordships. I would say, first, that I am very glad to find that, even though unwillingly, the noble and learned Lord and his friends have come round to our suggestion that Mr. Justice Wylie should be given the appeal on questions of value. The two assessors, as I have already stated, were only suggested to meet

293
a supposed desire of noble Lords opposite, and if they drop out it will cause us no special sorrow. The general effect of the Amendments which the noble and learned Lord has intimated his intention of moving, is that the appeals on value will go to Mr. Justice Wylie, assisted by a valuer under the Act of 1881, if he so chooses. I pass by, for the moment, the question of the appeals under Clause 6, and come to the important point mentioned by the noble and learned Lord—namely, his desire that this valuer should be subjected to cross-examination. I do trust noble Lords opposite will not insist on that change. I do not complain that these Amendments are proposed without notice, because all the proceedings at this stage are necessarily without much notice; but it is, so far as I know, a purely unprecedented thing that a valuer called in to assist a Judge in this way should be subjected to cross-examination by the parties or by those who legally represent them. There are two very distinct objections to this course being taken. In the first place, I should have thought the possibility of being put into the witness-box, or, as we say in Ireland, on the table, and cross-examined, would prevent a valuer of real standing from undertaking this work at all; and that is a consideration which I should like your Lordships to bear in mind. I am perfectly certain that the kind of man you would get to do the work would necessarily be of somewhat inferior character to the valuer who would otherwise be employed. I do not want to repeat what I said on this matter of valuation at an earlier stage of the Bill, but I would ask your Lordships, from your own knowledge of land and kindred matters, How is a valuation of that kind susceptible of cross-examination? A great many of your Lordships know land well, and are good judges of it. If you were driving about the estate of some friend you would be able to judge pretty accurately what the land you were passing through was paying per acre, and if you knew the average rent paid in the neighbourhood you would be able to arrive at a fairly correct conclusion in each case. But if you were put into the witness-box and asked to say how you had arrived at the opinion that a particular farm
294
would average 25s. or 30s. an acre, I am inclined to think you would be very much puzzled to describe the mental process at which you reached that conclusion. I do not think that the processes of valuation and of cross-examination are really compatible things; and under these circumstances I hope noble Lords opposite will not press that Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Let me say at the outset, with regard to the proposal made by His Majesty's Government that the Judicial Commissioner should be assisted by two independent assessors, that the noble Earl is quite right in stating that this proposal was put forward by His Majesty's Government in the belief that it might have the effect of reconciling noble Lords who are interested in this matter to the Judicial Commissioner as a Court of Appeal. I confess that to me it seemed that there was a good deal to be said for associating the Judicial Commissioner with two carefully chosen assessors, but the idea has not found favour with noble Lords qualified to speak, and therefore we certainly should be glad if that proposal were allowed to drop out. With regard to the attitude of those who sit round me on the question of appeal, I hope it will be understood that we have never desired to put into this Bill any provisions which might have the effect of rendering proceedings under it needlessly dilatory or expensive. We gave evidence of our good faith in that matter in an Amendment proposed by Lord Atkinson, which took away altogether from appeal what has been generally spoken of as appeal on necessity. But we did very earnestly desire that there should be an appeal on the question of price and other questions arising under the Bill to some tribunal external to the Land Commission. We have now, however, been told, finally and conclusively, that we are not to have such an appeal, and I do not desire to press that point further. But I am glad the noble Earl has no objection to allowing an appeal on questions arising under Clause 6, not to the Judicial Commissioner, but to a Judge. That is the proposal embodied in one of Lord Atkinson's Amendments, which I understand is not unacceptable to the Government. Under that

295
Amendment as I understand it, it will be possible for a planter to appeal upon the question whether he does or does not come within the description contained in the concluding part of the clause moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Robertson. There remain the two suggestions made by Lord Atkinson—one that the cases should be heard by the Judicial Commissioner himself and not by a substitute; the other that the valuer should be subject to cross-examination. Neither of those proposals has been yet before the House, and I say frankly that I do not see how we can press them if the Government altogether refuse to entertain them. The noble Earl has told us distinctly that the Government cannot accept the second proposal. But I hope that the first may be accepted, since we on this side have been greatly reconciled to the proposal of the Government on account of the confidence inspired by Mr. Justice Wylie's high character and antecedents.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry I omitted to mention this point. We have no objection whatever to accepting the Amendment with regard to Mr. Justice Wylie. It really only conveys what we always meant should be the manner in which appeals should be carried out. As the noble Marquess has mentioned it, I ought to say something now about the later subsection—the appeals under Clause 6. We do, I confess with very considerable reluctance, place the appeals under Clause 6 on a different footing from appeals on value. Some people, I believe, think that so far as the operations of this Bill are concerned, Clause 2, as amended, destroys any possibility of dealing with tenanted land; that Clause 6, as now amended, will destroy the possibility of dealing with untenanted land, and that the operations of the Bill are not, therefore, likely to be wide. One objection is that appeals of this kind are likely to mean expense; and if it were the case that the Treasury was to have to pay for every appeal which might be made at the instance of every solicitor concerned with these transactions, we should not have been able to accept this appeal. But noble Lords will notice that in this particular instance, the
296
Judge may make such order as to costs as he may think fit. If people make frivolous appeals, they ought very properly to be saddled with the costs.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will now put the Motion that this House do not insist upon its Amendment in page 3, line 30.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Commons Amendment thereupon amended (on the Motion of Lord ATKINSON) in such a manner as to provide that the power and duties of the Judicial Commissioner should not be exercised by any other Judge, except during the absence through illness of the Judicial Commissioner; that any person aggrieved by any determination of the Estates Commissioners of a question arising under the provision of the Act imposing restrictions on the acquisition of land might appeal locally or to a Judge of the King's Bench Division of the High Court, placed on the rota for the purposes of the Act; and that the Judge should have the power of determining all questions of law and fact arising on any such appeal other than the question referred to the Judicial Commissioner.
Drafting and consequential Amendments agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The Commons insist on their Amendment in page 4, line 4—
"Unless the new tenant has applied for compensation as hereinafter provided."
This Amendment was inserted by the Commons when the Bill first went down, but it was disagreed to by your Lordships, and the Commons have re-inserted it, because in their opinion the words are necessary.
Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he had no doubt he would agree to the Commons Amendment, but he would like to have a glimmering of what it meant.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I take it that it simply means that unless the new tenant has applied for compensation in money, the Estates Commissioners will place him in possession of a parcel of land somewhere else. It is, in essence a drafting Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Surely this is a very dangerous way to deal with Amendments. I am unable to find the slightest trace of the Amendment on the Paper, and I do not know what it is about.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he had moved an Amendment on this question at a previous stage, but could not follow what was being done now. But if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill understood it, he was satisfied.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The Commons disagree to the Amendment in page 5, line 5, and insist on their Amendments in page 5, line 6, and lines 7 and 8. They disagree because your Lordships' Amendments are inconsistent with the Commons proposal respecting the Appeal tribunal.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendments."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: We now come to Clause 6. The Commons disagree to the Lords Amendment in page 5, line 26, and to the Amendment in page 5, line 32, for the reason that it is inexpedient to restrict the acquisition of land in the manner proposed. In arriving at that conclusion hon. Gentlemen in another place were very much guided by the wide words as to damage to land which we inserted at the end of
298
this clause. I think those words practically safeguard landowners, and I hope, therefore, your Lordships will not insist on your Amendments. We always objected to the words "which for any reason possesses exceptional or accommodation value to the owner." I hope that as we have reached very near argeement on other matters, your Lordships will not press this Amendment now. I cannot conceive that there is any prospect of building land being taken, and under these circumstances I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. I may remind noble Lords that the appeal which is now given to the High Court upon all these questions does safeguard noble Lords and landowners generally to a very great extent.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendments."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I always thought there was a strong case for including a reference to building land amongst those classes of land which would not be compulsorily acquired, and we were under the impression that His Majesty's Government had accepted this. But I think the noble Earl is perfectly justified in urging that this clause, if weakened by the omission of the reference to building land, will be considerably strengthened by the Government's Amendment at the end of the clause. I would, therefore, suggest to my noble friends behind me that they should not press the Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The Commons disagree to the Lords Amendment in page 6, line 39, for the reason that the words are unnecessary.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: A consequential Amendment has been made by the Commons on page 5, line 34 to leave out from "of" to the end of line 36, and to

299
insert the words "any other property of the owner so as not to diminish the value thereof." I ask your Lordships to agree to this Amendment.
Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CREWE: That, my Lords, concludes the consideration of these Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not know whether, before we entirely part with this Bill, it would be possible to have it looked through by a small Committee to see if the Amendments are correctly inserted. But for the guidance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I do not think we should have been able to have got through the Bill at all, and whether we have done so with absolute success he would be a bold man who would say.
THE EARL OF CREWE: There is no doubt that, owing to the manner in which the different Papers come up to your Lordships, it is difficult to follow the precise effect of an Amendment; but, so far as I know, the Amendments have all been inserted in their proper places and in proper form, thanks, as the noble Marquess has said, to the way in which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has conducted the business. At the same time, we gladly fall in with the noble Marquess's suggestion.
Committee appointed to prepare a Reason for the Lords disagreeing to the said Amendment, the Committee to meet forthwith.
Bill returned to the Commons.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, in moving that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be considered, and speaking, as I hope the House will believe, in no provocative spirit, but in all earnestness, I have to say that the Government could not, and will not take the responsibility of a Bill which would not work effectively. The efficiency of a Bill of this character depends upon its simplicity, and the simplicity of the procedure by which it is to be carried out; and so far as Amendments may tend to make that procedure complicated and costly or dilatory the Government feel bound to resist them, even at the serious risk of losing the Bill, which, of course, we should very much regret. It would, however, be better in the opinion of the Government to lose the Bill than to pass it into law knowing that it was illusory.
Moved, "That the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments and Commons reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be considered."—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN, as one who had taken a considerable part in the consideration of this Bill in Committee, repudiated altogether the suggestions of the noble Lord that any Amendment their Lordships had inserted in the Bill had been inserted with the intention, or with any idea, that it would make procedure complicated or costly or dilatory. They had only tried their best to improve the machinery of the Bill. They did not believe any Amendments inserted in the Bill were open to such adjectives as he had quoted from the noble Earl's observations, and he entirely repudiated anything of the kind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: Your Lordships passed an Amendment to leave out Subsection (2) of Clause 5. The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose to amend the Bill by inserting, after line 24 of page 2, the following subsection: "Any order made by the Board directing the Commissioners to carry a scheme into effect shall be laid before both Houses

301
of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made." I move that the Lords Amendment be not insisted upon, and that the Amendment of the Commons be agreed to. This matter has been thoroughly threshed out in previous debates, and I do not know that I need detain your Lordships at any length on the subject. It was fully discussed last night in the Commons House of Parliament, and I think I may say in a few words that the object of the subsection which the Commons desire to retain is to reserve the power of giving the county councils "all or none." If the county council help the Board of Agriculture with their machinery, well and good, and the Board would be pleased to help them in carrying out a scheme; but if they pursued a line of conduct actively hostile, the Government will carry it out, and I maintain that the Government are right in objecting entirely to the Treasury being made to pay in every case for what they do in the county councils' default.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that when he moved the omission of this subsection he had no desire to erase it, but only to give the House of Commons another opportunity of discussing it. It was so discussed on the preceding night, he was afraid with no satisfactory result; but their Lordships had at all events done their best to ensure that the matter should be dealt with properly. He hoped the President of the Board of Agriculture, for the sake of the smooth working of the Bill, would be reasonably liberal in carrying out the powers given to the Treasury by this section, and would not attempt such an unpopular and unfair task as the imposing of burdens on the ratepayers against the will of their representatives.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE)said the noble Viscount opposite had secured his object and given the House of Commons another opportunity of discussing the relations of the Treasury with the county councils. It was not, however, possible at this
302
stage for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any further statement on the question. He felt perfectly certain that the assurances that had been given would be interpreted from the point of view of dealing as liberally as possible with the county councils.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDobjected to the description of the clause given by the President of the Board of Agriculture. There was no question of the county council being "actively hostile." The power which the Government were taking for the central authority was the power to impose a rate compulsorily upon a county council which simply did nothing because it thought that nothing was required to be done.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: The Commons disagree to your Lordships' Amendment in Clause 6, page 4, line 32, after the word "to" to insert the words "purchase of," for the reason that it is undesirable to give compulsory powers where the object of the acquisition of land is the sale as distinguished from the letting of small holdings. I move that the House do not insist on the Amendment. As I have said before, the main principle of the Bill is that the county councils should let the land, as against peasant proprietary.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsaid that as he was responsible for moving this Amendment in Committee, and as the triumph which he then experienced seemed likely to be short-lived, he would like to say a word before their Lordships finally left the subject. Referring to the description in another place of their Lordships' Amendments as nonsensical, mischievous, or introduced with the object of wrecking the Bill, he

303
denied that this Amendment came properly under any of these descriptions. The complaint of their Lordships was that they had been unable to get definite explanations of the Bill. The courtesy of the President of the Board of Agriculture might be very soothing, but it was not satisfying. If the position of affairs had been reversed, and this Amendment had come up from the Commons and been refused by their Lordships, every Radical platform would have rung with denunciation. They would have been told they were endeavouring to introduce into the Agricultural system of England servile conditions like those of Chinese labour, and with a good deal more justification than in the case of Chinese labour. When they were told that the county councils were reasonable and that "Brutus was an honourable man," why did they not trust the county councils, and give them the option of purchase with all their boasted love of freedom and liberty. The Bill would restrict liberty and hold the county councils, the landowners, and the small holders in a rigid chain from which there was no escape. He was anxious to do nothing to wreck the Bill, and he left the Amendment in the hands of their Lordships.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW, taking note of the reason given by His Majesty's Government, could not advise the House to insist on its Amendment. It would certainly be a strong order compulsorily to expropriate "A" in order to sell the land to "B," and it was not quite so strong to expropriate for hiring. With all deference to the view expressed by Lord St. Aldwyn he hoped their Lordships would not seek to add further to the powers of the Act of 1892.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have never disguised from the House my own strong feeling that it is to purchase that we should look for the solution of the difficulty with which this Bill is designed to deal. I believe that the alternative of hiring, although, no doubt, in some ways it is tempting to His Majesty's Government as being amongst other things more economical, is less good both for the person who hires and for the landowner from whom
304
the property is taken. But His Majesty's Government have made it plain to us that this Bill is based entirely on hiring; and I understand, from the remarks which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill delivered with so much emphasis at the commencement of the proceedings this evening on the Bill, he has committed himself so deeply to hiring as a solution that if your Lordships were to insist on this Amendment our insistence would probably be fatal to the Bill. In these circumstances, I think His Majesty's Government must take the full responsibilit of having driven out of the measure this very moderate instalment of purchase. I think they will find that when their conduct is thoroughly understood in the country, to many people it will come as a great disappointment that with the opportunity before them which the Bill presents they should have brushed on one side, almost with contempt, the one solution of the agricultural difficulty which many people believe to be, not only the most desirable, but the only permanent solution.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHcalled attention to the reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment—
"Because it is undesirable to give compulsory powers where the object of acquisition of land is the sale as distinguished from the letting of small holdings."
This was a very broad general statement, and he wished to ask if that represented the view of His Majesty's Government in all circumstances and for all time.
EARL CARRINGTON: The answer to that question is a distinct affirmative.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: The Commons object to Lord Jersey's Amendment in Clause 6, page 4, line 40. That Amendment runs as follows—
"(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."

305
The Commons disagree for the reason that it is undesirable that one county council should have power to hamper the operations of another. The Government adhere to the omission and cannot in any circumstances accept the Amendment.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDcontended that it was necessary in the interest of the ratepayers in the second county, that some check should be put on these powers of outside acquisition. "Hamper" was a mild word to use, but it had application to the one county as well as to the other. What the objection to the Amendment really was they did not know. Without it, the second county might have its rates for police, drainage, and roads increased and a perfectly alien and, perhaps, very undesirable, population dumped down in its area. That was what the House of Commons thought was met by the use of the word "hamper." If a noble Lord, walking along the street, and feeling a man put his hand into his pocket, seized that hand, what would he think if a policeman came up and said, "Let that man go; it is undesirable that one member of the public should have power to hamper the operations of another?" But that was the the way in which His Majesty's Government looked at this matter. He moved as an alternative the following words as a fair compromise.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 40, to insert the words 'Where a county council desire to acquire compulsorily land without their county such council shall give notice in the prescribed manner of their intention to acquire such land to the county council of the county in which the land is situated, and if the council of that county object to such acquisition they may appeal to the Board, and the Board shall have power finally to determine all questions arising and to settle the terms of arrangements, if any, between the county councils of the respective counties.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland).
EARL CARRINGTON: I recognise the noble Duke's wish to put as little difficulty in the way as possible, but the principle is just the same, and we cannot
306
accept his proposal. One result of such a proceeding would be to send up the price of land 20 or 30 per cent.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Why?
EARL CARRINGTON: The moment a public body is supposed to want a piece of ground up goes the price. The only way of getting land at any sort of reasonable price is not to bring the county council into the transaction at all. I cannot accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNwas very much surprised at this reply, for he could not see how the proposal would add to the publicity that must accompany the procedure under the Bill. It was only reasonable that a county council should communicate its intention in order that any objection, if it existed, should be stated, and he hoped the Government would accept the Duke of Northumberland's Amendment.
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Viscount puts his points so well that it is extremely difficult to argue against him, but I submit that in the Bill as it stands there is ample provision for notice being given to the council of what has been called the invaded county. I am sure that any decent county council would acquaint the council of the county in which they thought of taking land of their intention so to do. Under the Bill arrangements between the county councils are in no way prohibited, and might easily be made.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Will the noble Earl point to that particular provision in the Bill?
EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid I cannot at the moment.
LORD SANDERSONthought the provision as to publicity to which the noble Lord had alluded was contained iu Subsection (1) of Clause 4. That subsection provided that—
"A copy of any draft scheme under this Act shall, if prepared by a county council be sent to the Board, and if prepared by the Commissioners be sent to the Board and to any county council concerned, and the draft scheme

307
and any modifications therein which the Board may propose to make shall he published and advertised together with notice of the time within and manner in which objections are to be sent to the Board in such manner as the Board think best adapted for informing the persons affected and for insuring publicity."
LORD FITZMAURICEdoubted there was that antagonism between counties which noble Lords on the Opposition benches seemed to imply. All the Government desired was that there should be facilities for meeting cases which frequently occurred owing to the peculiarities of county boundaries by allowing the council of the county in which the main portion of the land was situated, to extend its operations into the adjoining county where necessary.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsupported the Duke of Northumberland's Amendment, and said it was bad policy to allow one county council to invade the territory of another. The proposal as it stood would very likely create friction, discord, and jealousy.
On Question, Motion, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment," agreed to.
On Question, Amendment moved by the Duke of Northumberland negatived.
EARL CARRINGTON: The Commons disagree with your Lordships' Amendments in Clause 7, page 5, line 2, by which after the first "for" you inserted "selling or," and after "and" you inserted "sold or." They disagree because these Amendments are consequential on the Lords Amendment to Clause 6, page 4, line 32, to which the Commons disagree.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendments."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: In Clause 9, page 5, line 19, after the word "constituted" your Lordships inserted the words "under rules approved by the Board." The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—Because the consent of the Board of
308
Agriculture and Fisheries under the clause is a sufficient safeguard.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: The Commons disagree to your Lordships' Amendment in Clause 11, page 5, line 33, by which you inserted after the word "council" the words "as agricultural holdings;" but they propose to amend the Clause-by inserting after the word "council" the following words, "but so that the council shall not authorise more than one dwelling-house to be erected for occupation with any one small holding."
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: Your Lordships adopted an Amendment, on the proposition of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount St. Aldwyn), leaving out Clause 13. The Commons disagree to this Amendment, because it is inexpedient that an adjoining owner should have the right of pre-emption in the case of a small holding intended to be sold by the owner thereof.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNSaid he had not the least objection to this clause, and had only moved its omission as a matter of drafting. Clause 13 repealed a section of an Act which was also repealed in the schedule, and was, therefore, unnecessary, but if the Government insisted on restoring it he had no objection.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: I move that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendment to Clause 21 (Amendments of Allotments Acts), leaving out the subsection which gives power for the erection of dwelling-houses on allotments, where necessary, to which the Commons disagree, on the ground that it may be desirable to erect a dwelling-house on certain allotments. The refusal to allow a cottage to be built upon an allotment would be a little hard, so the Government propose to give general power of erecting suitable buildings. As the allotments run to five acres, it will very likely be necessary to build a cottage on some. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not insist upon your Amendment.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT GALWAYpointed out that his object in moving this Amendment had been that the parish councils should not build cottages out of the rates on the very small allotments. It was true allotments could now be made up to five acres, but there was no limit in the Act about building cottages. He now moved to amend the Amendment by adding, "No dwelling-house shall be erected for occupation on any allotments of less than three acres."
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 16, to insert the words no dwelling-house shall be erected for occupation on any allotments of less than three acres."—(Viscount Galway.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped the President of the Board of Agriculture would favourably consider the Amendment of the noble Viscount. The noble Earl appeared to suggest, in asking that the Amendment made by their Lordships should not be insisted on, that no cottage or dwelling-house could be erected by any public body on an allotment of an acre. That was contrary to the fact. A county council had ample power under this Bill, if it chose, to erect a cottage on an allotment of one acre. There was every reason why the county council was the better body to undertake such work. This
310
clause dealt simply with the powers of parish councils; the powers of county councils were dealt with in another clause. Very few parish councils would be able to carry out a building scheme except at a great waste of public money, and with the probable result that the cottages would be very badly built. They had not the necessary knowledge and experience, and the result of an attempt on their part to carry out this provision would no doubt be a great burden on the rates of small parishes. The work of building houses was better undertaken by the county council than by the parish council. The parish council in this Bill meant, in very small parishes, the chairman of the parish meeting and a couple of overseers. Nothing would be more absurd than to entrust such a body with the power of erecting dwelling houses. He thought the suggestion of Viscount Galway a reasonable one.
EARL CARRINGTON: I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment. Parish councils have done extremely well in days gone by in providing allotments, and they ought not to be shut out in this Bill. Besides, the county council would come to the rescue of the parish council in the erection of necessary houses, and would give them the advantage of their advice and their officials. In the name of the labourers of England, I would earnestly appeal to the noble Viscount not to press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYagreed with the noble Viscount that it would be detrimental that very small parish councils should possess this power. But he thought that in the case of the large and influential parish councils it should be given.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We have heard no argument against the very reasonable proposal of my noble friend behind me. It has been suggested by Lord Kimberley that some parish councils are large and influential bodies. That may be the case; but the proposal of His Majesty's Government is not limited to the large parish councils. It extends to all of them, and it extends even to places where there is no parish council, and where these powers will

311
be entrusted to two or three men. We all know how important it is that cottages should be built according to proper sanitary conditions, and how desirable it is that villages should be laid out on a proper basis; and to make a parish meeting, with perhaps a mason and a bricklayer as members of it, free to cover the place with buildings seems to me an absurdity for which I should not have thought room would be found in this Bill.
LORD FITZMAURICESaid it was easy to conjure up visions of great danger in the case of very small parishes, but in reality the difficulties were of an exactly opposite kind. His experience of the very small parish councils, and of the still smaller parishes that only had parish meetings, was that there was great difficulty in getting them to do anything at all, and that if any member of these small councils came forward with anything approaching a building scheme, he would be turned out at the next election even if the scheme was a desirable one. This clause touched a question which came up in nearly every Bill relating to the local government of rural districts in England—the great difficulty caused by the existence of very small parishes. He held a view on this matter which he dared say would scandalise not only noble Lords opposite, but also some of his political friends; he would like to see some drastic Act of Parliament which would compel all these small parishes within a certain time to be amalgamated with their neighbours, so that all local authorities should be of a reasonable size. Minute parishes were an unmitigated nuisance, because they stood in the way of every public improvement.
On Question, Motion, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment," agreed to.
On Question, Amendment moved by Viscount Galway agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: In Clause 24, page 11, line 20, after the word "section" your Lordships inserted the words "and have refused to comply with the representation made by the council of the urban
312
district or parish for the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments." The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the reason that the clause would not apply if an urban district or parish council were attempting to acquire land compulsorily for allotments.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is a very short one; and, as I stated it to your Lordships at the time the House was considering it before, it will be sufficient if I merely remind your Lordships what it; amounts to to. According to the framework of the Bill as proposed by the Government, an Order may be made for the compulsory taking of land under certain conditions, and after this Order is confirmed by the Board it becomes final and can no longer be questioned by anyone or by any Court. Your Lordships inserted an Amendment in the place of that to say that the effect of this confirming Order should be only to empower the council to acquire lands "in accordance with the provisions of this Act"; and the effect of the Amendment your Lordships inserted was to leave it still open after the confirming Order for anyone to question in a Court of Law the validity of the Order. The Commons have disagreed with your Lordships' Amendment, and have supported the view of the Government, namely, that there ought to be an end of the thing after the Order has been confirmed by the Board, for the sake of avoiding litigiousness. I am afraid, my Lords, this is a very vital point of the Bill according to the sense and judgment of the Government; and I hope your Lordships will not insist upon your Amendment; for, after all, it is desirable to put an end to questionable points, and, after sufficient time has been given to make objections, that then no further objection can be made. Otherwise, there might be a sea of litigation.
Moved, "That this House do not insist upon its Amendment to Clause 26, page 12, line 16, to leave out from the word

313
'shall' to the end of Subsection (3), and to insert the words 'empower the council to acquire the land in accordance with the provisions of this Act.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that this Amendment was moved by a noble and learned Lord who had great and deserved authority in that House, Lord Robertson. He had communicated with the noble and learned Lord as to whether he desired to press the Amendment, and was informed by him that he did not desire to ask their Lordships to insist upon it. Speaking for himself, he (Viscount St. Aldwyn) felt the force of the argument which had been used by the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack that it was desirable that the time should come, and come early, when legal proceedings should not delay any Order under this Bill. He understood from the noble and learned Lord that it would be possible for an injunction to be obtained against the Board of Agriculture before the Order was made if any person interested should think the Board of Agriculture were exceeding their powers. After the Order was made, if the words which their Lordships had struck out were restored to the Bill, the Order would be final and could not be questioned in a Court of Law. The owners of land in England would be placed in a less favourable position in the matter than owners of land in Ireland were recently placed. But, notwithstanding that, he felt that they, in England, had some confidence in the fairness of the Board of Agriculture; and he hoped that, as the noble Lord had often promised them, the Bill would be administered in that spirit, with a desire to do justice to all parties concerned. For his part, therefore, he would not press the House to insist on its Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In answer to the noble Viscount, I ought to say this, in order to make quite clear what I think will be the law on the subject. If any land is taken which is land prohibited by this Act to be taken, in my opinion the Courts of Law could interfere to prevent it just as they would to prevent any violation of an Act of Parliament; but if what I propose
314
is assented to then they would not be able to interfere after the Order is finally confirmed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Consequential Motions agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: We now come, my Lords, to the Amendment in Clause 30, page 15, line 27, with reference to the "home farm." I think the whole House was agreed on this point, and that we all wanted to carry out the same thing. The only difficulty was to find in the English language words to do it. We discussed the difficulties in reference to the words "home farm" and I suggested that we should add to those words "of any estate," and my noble friend (Lord Haversham) was quite content to agree to that. But it was decided—and I think very properly decided—that the words "of any estate" made "home farm" still more incomprehensible than before. Therefore we propose now to add some other words which I hope will be satisfactory to the critics in your Lordships' House, and the clause will read thus—"No land shall be authorised by an Order under this Act to be acquired compulsorily which, at the date of the Order, formed part of any park," etc., "or forms part of the home farm"—and then these new words—"attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house or that is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house." I hope those words cover everything that is wanted, so that under these words no part of any of your Lordships' home farms, or any farm that is part and parcel of any estate, shall be interfered with in any way. It would be a monstrous injustice to do so, and that is the last thing we wish to do under the Bill. I venture to hope that the clever heads which have at last got those words together will not have their labour in vain, and that their words may be accepted and put into the Bill. I move to disagree with the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment and I propose to amend the Lords Amendment in the way I have stated. I think that is very plain and the words

315
proposed to be added "the home farm attached thereto."
Moved, "That this House do disagree with the Commons Amendment, and that the Lords Amendment be amended by the addition of the words 'attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house, or that is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: After "pleasure ground."
EARL CARRINGTON: We keep all parks, pleasure grounds, amenities, pigsties—everything you can think of. All that is kept in, and after that we have the words "home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house."
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: The next Amendment is in Clause 30, page 15, line 28. Your Lordships agreed after the word "dwelling-house" to insert the words "or which is woodland not wholly surrounded by land acquired by a council under this Act." That was, I think, Lord Camperdown's Amendment. The Commons propose to amend the Amendment by inserting after the words "surrounded by" the words "or adjacent to," and I propose the Lords agree with the Commons Amendment.
Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: At Clause 30, page 15, line 31, we come to Lord Verulam's Amendment in reference to places of "historic and archaeological interest." There is again here the difficulty of the English language. The Amendment as passed by your Lordships was to insert the words "or includes the site of any ancient monument or place of historic or archæological in-
316
terest." It has been now discovered that "places of historical interest" means battlefields, and under those conditions it would be impossible to accept the Amendment; so that I have ventured to alter the Amendment that I accepted from the noble Earl in the following words which I am told really do carry out the desired object. I propose to disagree with the Commons, but to amend the Bill by inserting after the word "undertaking" the following words "or is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archæological interest." I think that will be agreed to by the House, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"After the word 'undertaking' to omit the words 'place of historic or' and insert the words 'is the site of an ancient monument or other object of.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment, as amended, insisted on.
EARL CARRINGTON: On Clause 30, page 6, line 4, we come to the question of the land which either does not exceed fifty acres "or if exceeding fifty acres is of an annual value for the purposes of income-tax not exceeding £50," and so on. I do not think I need explain it again to your Lordships, because you know all about the farms of 150 acres which let at 5s. an acre, and so on. I propose therefore, at once that your Lordships do not insist on your Amendment, but that you agree with the Commons Amendment, which is to insert at page 16, line 4, after the word "extent," the words "nor any part of any such holding." I do not know if I have explained it sufficiently, but I think the House understands the Amendment of Lord St. Aldwyn very well, and with the leave of the House I will not say anything more about it. I beg to move.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he had originally moved his Amendment with the

317
object of assimilating the description of the small holding now in private occupation which was not to be taken by the Board or by the county council to the Government's own description of a small holding which they proposed to establish, which appeared in the interpretation clause of the Bill. It seemed to him that the two ought to be identical, and that it was better for every reason that they should be so. But he did not profess to think that the matter was one of very great importance, and as they were in process of argreement, and as the noble Lord and the Government seemed to attach importance to the clause remaining as it was, he did not press the Amendment.
EARL CARRINGTON: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
On Question, Commons Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: The next is the Commons Amendment at Clause 33, page 16, line 36—I am not sure, but I think it was Lord Plymouth's Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Yes.
EARL CARRINGTON: It had reference to the powers of resumption in the case of the making of roads, reservoirs, railways, or other similar works necessary for the improvement and development of an estate. The Government considered—and I think the House will agree rightly considered—that the powers asked for by the noble Earl were rather too large and too wide. We are anxious to meet the noble Earl in every possible way, and I propose, with your Lordships' leave, that the clause should run as follows: After the words "Where land is shown to be required by the landlord to be used for building, mining, or other industrial purposes,' to insert the words" or for roads necessary therefor." That is the Commons proposed Amendment, and I hope that that will meet the noble Earl's view. I beg to move to agree to the Commons Amendment.
Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: At Clause 35, page 18, lines 13 and 14, your Lordships Amendment was to leave out Subsection (4), which was that "Subsection (5) of Section 7 of the Allotments Act, 1887, is hereby repealed." The subsection repealed was to the effect that no buildings, otherwise than a tool-house, shed, greenhouse and so on, should be erected on an allotment. "Buildings" includes a cottage; and the effect of the Amendment would be to shut out a cottage from being built on a plot of land. "Stables, cow-houses and barns" were proposed to be erected under Clause 21, page 10, lines 16 to 20; but this is part and parcel of a previous attempt to cut out "buildings," which would include a cottage. I beg to move that this House do not insist upon its Amendment.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is at Clause 43, page 20, line 39. Your Lordships, by your Amendment, provided that in cases where the Commissioners acting in default of a county council were authorised compulsorily to acquire land the arbitrator or valuer, instead of being required to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England, should be so required "only in default of agreement between the parties." Agreement between the parties is of course very material in certain cases, but in this case that is not of so much importance, because the Commissioners themselves might, by refusing their assent, prevent the thing from coming into operation at all, and might require the Lord Chief Justice to appoint. I do not know if your Lordships think it necessary to insist upon this Amendment, but in this particular passage I do not think

319
the provision would have any effect which could be objected to.
Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNdid not think the Amendment in this clause necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment, my Lords, is different; it is an Amendment to the First Schedule, page 23, line 12, where provision is made for arbitration between the county council and the landlord; and your Lordships, by your former Amendment, provided that the parties—that is to say, the county council and the landlord—might agree to an arbitrator, instead of the Board appointing him. I submit to your Lordships that that is not a wise thing to do, for this reason: that they are not the only persons concerned; there are other persons interested, the Board is interested, and the Board may be put to expense in more ways than one, and may have to find the money. Where another party is interested, it does not seem to be desirable that the two parties should agree between themselves upon an arbitrator on a matter affecting the interests of others. That is the reason why I suggest that your Lordships should not insist upon this Amendment. It is regarded by His Majesty's Government as really a very vital matter.
Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CLINTONsaid the object of the Amendment was to carry out the ordinary provisions of arbitrations which had always been enforced in agricultural districts to enable the parties to choose somebody with local knowledge. He and those who thought with him believed that local knowledge was of the greatest importance in the matters likely to be in dispute under this Bill. He admitted the force of the Lord Chancellor's views in favour of the parties
320
paying the arbitrator choosing him; but he did not think it was of sufficient importance to override the other arguments—that the parties should have a choice in getting a man with local knowledge. He did not, however, wish to press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNagreed with the noble Lord (Lord Clinton). He did not wish to press the Amendment at that stage; but he thought the argument which the noble and learned Lord had used might have been met if the words "with the consent of the Treasury" had been inserted, by which it would have been made perfectly clear that the Treasury would have a voice in the matter. At the same time he did not wish to press the Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
LORD FITZMAURICEcalled attention to the fact that their Lordships had made an Amendment to the First Schedule, page 23, line 33, leaving out certain words. That the Commons agreed to, but proposed to amend the Bill by inserting in the First Schedule, page 24, after line 2, the following new paragraph—
"(6) The arbitrator, in assessing the compensation to be paid for land compulsorily acquired, shall take into consideration the rent, if any, at which the land has been let and the annual value at which the land is assessed for the purposes of income tax and rating."
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNSaid those words were struck out of the Bill for a very good reason in Committee. The only guidance given to the arbitrator when considering the terms of purchase by the Bill as it came to their Lordships' House, were the words "the rent (if any) at which the land has been last let and the annual value at which the land is assessed for the purpose of income-tax and rating." Those words might be a very good guide when it was a question of hiring, and the words stood in the hiring part of the schedule and had not been objected to by their Lordships. Here, however they were distinctly misleading by themselves alone. In buying land

321
there might be a question of minerals or of future building value and other matters of that kind which the arbitrator would have to consider, but which would not be pointed out for his consideration by simply inserting the words "as to rent or annual value." He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would object to the Commons Amendment which was now proposed. He begged to move.
Moved, "That this House do disagree" with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: The next Amendment is in the First Schedule, page 24, line 40, where your Lordships inserted after the word "aforesaid" the words—
"And (unless otherwise agreed) to pay all taxes, rates, and charges usually borne by tenants to insure the buildings, and to keep the buildings and premises demised in repair, and shall, if the landlord has given notice in the prescribed manner that he so desires, provide for the reservation to him, and persons authorised by him, of exclusive rights of fishing and sporting over the land."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment; and they propose to amend the Bill by inserting in page 24, line 40, after the word "aforesaid" the words—
"And (unless otherwise agreed) to keep the buildings and premises demised in repair;"
and by inserting in page 25, line 21, after the word "severance" the words—
"the terms and conditions of the hiring, including any reservation of sporting or fishing rights."
I propose that this House agree with the Commons.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in their proposed Amendment."
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNwished for an explanation or definition of the words "including any reservation of sporting
322
or fishing rights." The point was that where land was compulsorily hired the valuer or arbitrator in fixing the rent should have regard to the question whether or not the sporting and fishing rights were reserved to the landlord. If the sporting and fishing rights were to be reserved to the landlord the rent might be fixed by the arbitrator or valuer at a lower figure than if they were not reserved. The word "reservation" in that connection did not strike him as being quite clear. In the case of a farm over which the landlord had hitherto had the sole sporting and fishing rights, would the arbitrator or valuer understand by those words that if the county council took that farm and did not reserve the sporting and fishing rights to the landlord, he (the arbitrator or valuer) would have to fix a higher rent than the tenant had previously paid, and that if the landlord lost his sporting and fishing rights he ought to be compensated?
EARL CARRINGTON: I am very glad the noble Lord has asked that question, which certainly ought to be answered, and very plainly too. The answer to the noble Lord's question is, undoubtedly, yes. If the landlord gives up his sporting and fishing rights he ought to get more rent—there is no doubt about that—but one hopes that the county councils will not be foolish enough to take the sporting and fishing rights. We do not wish to put a lot of poaching and sporting tenants on the land, or to have a lot of areas all over the country planted with buckwheat so that pheasants may be poached; anything of that sort would be put down with a strong hand; and the Board of Agriculture would certainly not allow any proceedings of that description.
On Question, Commons Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: The next Amendment is in the First Schedule, page 24, line 42. Your Lordships Amendment was to leave out the words "that it can be so broken up without depreciating the value of the land or." The "breaking up," refers to the permanent pasture. Nobody would want to break up good old grass land; that would be a

323
sin; but there is a great deal of land in England which has laid itself down to grass which might with great advantage be put into cultivation again. I move that the House do not insist on the said Amendment.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: Then in the First Schedule, page 25, line 5, after the word "allotments," your Lordships inserted the words "for which proper compensation shall be paid to the landlord"—that is, for minerals and clay. The Commons propose to amend that Amendment by substituting the following words—
"And except upon payment of compensation for minerals, gravel, sand, or clay so used."
Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment, which is to the First Schedule, page 25, line 16, is somewhat analogous to what has been already agreed to by your Lordships' House on this stage of the Bill. "Arbitration" was by your Lordships' House substituted for "valuation," and "arbitrator agreed on between the parties, or, in default of agreement" by someone else, was agreed instead of "valuer." The real point here is simply a question of cost. His Majesty's Government are of opinion that if, instead of "valuation," "arbitration" is inserted it will necessarily increase the cost of hiring land. That is familiar to all who are in the habit of observing these matters; and I trust your Lordships will not press your Amendment, but will allow the Commons' very strong objection to prevail in this matter.
Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the point which the noble and learned Lord had raised was, in his opinion, the most important point they had had to deal with that afternoon. It made a material difference to the parties interested whether the process under the first part of the schedule was one of arbitration or valuation. The Agricultural Holdings Act provided for arbitration in every conceivable case as between landlord and tenant by a single arbitrator, with such provisions as made the arbitration as cheap as possible; but at the same time that arbitration, like all other arbitrations, was a regular hearing at which the parties might be represented on both sides, and evidence might be taken on oath. The whole matter must be thoroughly considered by the arbitrator, who gave his decision, not on legal points, perhaps, but, at any rate, in a fairly legal form. There was no very great amount of cost incurred, according to the information which had reached him, in arbitrations under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and he did not believe there need be. At any rate, if that was the objection—and, so far as he understood what the noble and learned Lord had said, it was the sole objection which His Majesty's Government had to inserting "arbitration" instead of "valuer" in this schedule—he thought it would be perfectly possible, as he would proceed to show, to meet it. A valuer need not hear the case at all; he might simply go and look at the land—he would not take proper evidence, there would be no regular proceedings before him, and in his belief—although he was very sorry to differ from the noble and learned Lord—the matter would not be as well dealt with, either in the interests of the owner, or, what was of quite equal importance, in the interests of the occupying tenant, by a valuer as by an arbitrator. An occupying tenant of a large farm under this Bill might have half his farm taken away, and a question of severance of great value to him would at once arise. Was he to remain in his farm, or was he to leave it? The whole work of his life might, so to

325
speak, be put an end to by the operations under this schedule, and was it not right that such a person should have, at any rate with regard to the question of severance and compensation for unexhausted improvements, the same protection by arbitration as he would have if his landlord had given him notice to quit, or if he himself had given notice to quit to his landlord? He hoped, in spite of what the noble and learned Lord had said, that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to reconsider this question. He suggested, in order to meet His Majesty's Government as far as possible, that their Lordships should agree to Amendments which would substitute "valuer" for "arbitrator" throughout this clause, but that at the end, before Subsection (7), they should insert the following new subsection—
"The matters to be referred to a valuer before the commencement of any tenancy created by compulsory hiring shall, on the application of either party, be ordered by the Board to be determined by arbitration instead of by a valuer, provided that any costs of the arbitration which the Board may deem to have been incurred by reason of such matters being referred to arbitration instead of to a valuer shall be paid by the party applying for arbitration."
He thought their Lordships would see that that effectually safeguarded the parties to the case against the increased costs which were such a source of dread to His Majesty's Government, and it would result in this—that unless there was a really important case which the parties desired should be heard by an arbitrator, the valuer would still be employed. If either party was willing to risk the costs that would be incurred by requiring arbitration, and to pay those costs, then arbitration would be granted by the Board, but only in those cases. He thought this would be an ample safeguard against any increased costs through arbitration under this clause, and he hoped their Lordships would favourably consider the proposal.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid the noble Lord opposite (Earl Carrington) had made several appeals to their Lordships upon other Amendments not to endanger or jeopardise the Bill, and he, for one, would be one of the very last persons to invite the House
326
to agree to any Amendment which would be likely to have that effect But he really must appeal to the noble Earl, and to His Majesty's Government, to give very careful consideration to these Amendments, which covered the whole of Subsection (3). Subsection (3) provided for the determination of the amount of rent to be paid by the council, and under (c) the rent to be paid for the residue of the holdings after a part had been taken. But to his mind Subsection (b) was by far the most important of the three. It provided as to the "amount of any compensation to be paid by the council to any person entitled thereto"—not only the landlord, but also the tenant—"in respect of land or any interest therein, or in respect of improvements executed on the land or otherwise"—that was to say, all the interests of the tenant farmer in the holding which he occupied. To his mind, one of the worst points about the Bill was that the interests of the tenant farmer had been too much overlooked from beginning to end. Their Lordships had discovered many points on which the interests of the landowner had not been fairly and equitably considered, and undoubtedly (a) and (c) referred to the interest of the landowner. He was not pleading for him. "Suffering was the badge of all his tribe," and they knew quite well that they must not put forward too strenuous a plea in his favour. But he did put forward a very strong and a very earnest plea on behalf of the tenant farmers who might be dispossessed under the Bill. Last session the noble Lord had come with a big banner, which he had waved in their Lordships' House, of the "Tenant Farmers' Charter," and now he came down with a Bill under which a tenant farmer might be ousted from his holding, or a part of his holding, in a manner wholly different from that in which he could be turned out of it by his landlord. He might be turned out by the ipse dixit of a valuer who came down and walked over the farm, asking nobody's opinion, taking no evidence of any sort or kind, but writing to the Board of Agriculture and saying: "This is my award; take it, or leave it." That was eminently unfair to the tenant farmer, and

327
he thought that, at least as far as the tenant farmer was concerned, their Lordships ought to insist that he should be so far protected as that his case might he heard before an arbitrator, and not before a valuer. He would not enter into the question of the difference between an arbitrator and a valuer, because he imagined that that was quite familiar to their Lordships, but whatever they might do with regard to the owner of land, they, at least, should give that amount of protection to the occupier.
EARL CARRINGTON: This raises a very important point indeed. We have been told that the interests of the tenant farmers have been overlooked, and an earnest plea has been made on their behalf. I think His Majesty's Government would be the last people who would wish to do anything that was inconsistent with fair play towards the British tenant farmers. The noble Earl opposite twitted me about the "Charter" that was passed last year, but I would remind him that in the Land Tenure Bill of last year compensation was only given for unreasonable disturbance. I was asked about this several times across the House, and I believe it was the consensus of opinion in this House that small holdings came under the category of "good estate management," and were not to be classed as "unreasonable disturbance," and therefore the tenant farmer was unable to claim compensation if a portion of his farm was taken off for small holdings if there was an absolute necessity for them in the district. As far as I understand it—the noble Viscount opposite will correct me if I am wrong—having read his proposed new paragraph very carefully through, it appears to me that all the three stages are to be determined by arbitration instead of by valuation. That I understand would be the case if the new paragraph stands as it is, but Lord Onslow has put, as far as I could gather, a new complexion on it altogether. He will correct me if I am making a mistake, but I understood him to suggest that arbitration instead of valuation should be confined to the sitting tenant when he goes out, so that a sitting tenant who had to go out on account of the action of a county council would be in exactly the same position as
328
a sitting tenant who had to go out owing to the action of a private landlord. This, of course, is a new departure altogether, and at the moment it would be impossible for me to give an answer but I thank noble Lords opposite for the suggestion, and I may say that we will give it the most careful and earnest consideration. I cannot say more than that at present, but I am quite prepared to go as far as that.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNwas afraid there was very little time for the noble Earl to take this matter into consideration, seeing that Parliament was to be prorogued to-morrow. He apprehended that the noble Earl would have to make up his mind with very little loss of time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not got before me the Amendment of the noble Viscount, but I followed it when he read it, and it appeared to me that it was one which substituted arbitration for valuation throughout the whole business, both for the sitting tenant, the owner, and everybody—it is to be a permissive arbitration in which the difference between the arbitration and the valuation costs is to be in the discretion of the Board for special reason shown.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: No; they are to be paid by the person asking for the arbitration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the Board thinks them excessive.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount will sec the difficulty: who is to say that the hearing of witnesses is necessitated by arbitration as opposed to valuation? Valuers can hear witnesses if they like, just as well as arbitrators. Therefore the complexity and difficulty of the Board having to decide between the two is absolutely insoluble, and besides, it strikes at the whole principle of the Bill, or I may rather say at that condition under which alone the Bill could possibly work, namely, a condition of strict economy.

329
Another alteration was suggested by the noble Earl, namely, as I understood him, that if the sitting tenant was dispossessed by reason of the operation of the Act he should be able to take advantage of the arbitration under the Agriclutural Holdings Act in regard to such things as were covered by the Agricultural Holdings Act.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: And severance.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not understand the noble Earl to suggest that.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Certainly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All I can say is—and I think that is what my noble friend said—that the Bill, in considering what could be done, could only suggest arbitration in the case of a sitting tenant in regard to those things which under the Agricultural Holdings Act would entitle him to compensation. In other words, so far as the Agricultural Holdings Act is concerned he would be treated as having been an outgoing tenant under that Act, though he was dispossessed by virtue of his land being taken under this Act. Otherwise I am afraid there is an irreconcilable difference between us, because the Government cannot possibly accept the idea of arbitration as opposed to valuation.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNspoke with much diffidence as against what had been said by the noble and learned Lord, but it occurred to him that if a landlord required a tenant to give up part of any farm, as the county council could require him to give up any farm under the provision of this Bill, under the Agricultural Holdings Act the question of severance would in some way or other arise. He could not imagine that it would be possible for a landlord to do such a thing without the Agricultural Holdings Act applying to the new circumstances in which he would put the tenant by his action. He could only suggest under the circumstances that they must press this matter, even in order that His Majesty's Government might be able to carry out what—after what the noble Earl had said—
330
he might accept as their own suggestion. Therefore he would propose that their Lordships' should insert this new subsection, and then His Majesty's Government would consider what they could offer to them in its place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I only wish to say one sentence, and that is that if a man has half his farm taken he would be entitled under this Bill to compensation for severance under the Act, but he also would be entitled to compensation for loss of improvements for the lands taken away from him growing crops, and so forth. What is meant, as I understand, is that only those subjects which would come under the Agricultural Holdings Act should become the subjects of arbitration in accordance with the principles of the Agricultural Holdings Act.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Viscount move his Amendment now?
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthought there were other Amendments before his. The new sub-section he proposed would come in before the last sub-section of the First Schedule.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With regard to your Lordship's Amendment to the First Schedule, page 25, line 21, namely, to leave out the words "rating or taxation" and insert the word "income-tax, the terms and conditions of the hiring," the meaning of that was that the "terms and conditions of the hiring" were to be considered in fixing the rent, all of which is reasonable enough. The Commons, however, propose to amend this Amendment by substituting "or rating" for "the terms and conditions of the hiring."
Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships left out paragraph 6 in the First Schedule, page 25, lines 33 to 40, which provided that any person interested in any valuation should give the valuer assistance and information, and should give him access to books, accounts, vouchers and so on. An apprehension arose in your Lordships' minds that access to title deeds might under this clause be required, and accordingly your Lordships struck the clause out. The Commons do not assent to that, but they propose to amend the Bill by leaving out the word "require" at page 25, line 37, and inserting the words "reasonably require for the purposes of valuation,' so that the documents which must be produced are such documents relating to the land compulsorily hired as he may reasonably require for the purposes of valuation.
Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsubmitted that the words as they stood were rather too wide, and that the words "except documents of title" ought to be inserted before the words "as he may reasonably require for the purposes of valuation." He understood His Majesty's Government to agree to that for obvious reasons.
Amendment moved—
"In Schedule 1, page 25, line 36, after the word 'hired,' to insert the words 'except documents of title.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment," Motion agreed to.
On Question, Amendment proposed by Viscount St. Aldwyn agreed to.
Commons' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved to insert after Subsection (6) of Part II. of the First Schedule the words he had already read.
Amendment moved—
"In the First Schedule, page 25, line 40, to insert the following new paragraph:—'The
332
matters to be referred to a valuer before the ending of any tenancy created by compulsory hiring, shall, on the application of either party, be ordered by the Board to be determined by arbitration instead of by a valuer, provided that any costs of the arbitration which the Board may deem to have been incurred by reason of such matters being referred to arbitration instead of to a valuer shall be paid by the party applying for arbitration.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL CARRINGTON: In the Second Schedule, page 26, line 9, your Lordships left out "Subsection (5) of Section 7." The Commons disagreed to this Amendment, because it is desirable that there should be power to erect on allotments buildings other than a tool-house, shed, greenhouse, fowl-house, or pig-sty. I beg to move that the House do not insist upon its Amendment.
Moved, "That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment."—(Earl Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
A Committee appointed to prepare a reason for the Lords disagreeing to one of the Commons Amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith.

CABS AND STAGE CARRIAGES (LONDON) BILL.
Commons reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords' Amendments considered (on Motion).
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I understand that this Amendment, which relates to what are called privileged cabs, is a substantive Amendment, and that Lord Stalbridge is about to move an Amendment to which His Majesty's Government offer no opposition.
LORD STALBRIDGE, in moving to leave out Subsection (2), page 2, line 4, said that the railway companies could not move from their original position, which he had stated frankly to the House, namely, that they believed that the privilege system was the one best suited to serve the true interests of the travelling public, and they did not believe that the scheme proposed by His

333
Majesty's Government would effect that purpose. If it did not, the responsibility would not lie upon the railway companies but upon His Majesty's Government. The railway companies would certainly do nothing aggressive, but would do what they could to carry out the intentions of the Bill. The subsection which he proposed to omit might interfere with the omnibuses of railway companies which now plied for passengers at the stations, and he did not believe that it was at all intended by the Government to effect that object. He understood that His Majesty's Government did not object to the omission of the subsection, and he therefore begged to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 4, to leave out Subsection (2)."—(Lord Stalbridge.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that before the Amendment was agreed to be wanted to have some slightly more definite assurance from His Majesty's Government with regard to the matter. If he might say so without offence, he thought the noble Lord who represented the Home Office was somewhat less than fair to the railway companies last night upon the matter of the monetary arrangements that were made. He seemed distinctly to imply—and his words, as reported, gave a distinct colour to the suggestion—that the railway companies were arguing this privilege cab system because it was supposed to put money into their pockets. He had done his best to disabuse the noble Lord's mind of that idea last night, and he wished to repeat in the most emphatic way that the question of the money concerned was an extremely small affair, and, indeed, on balance the railway companies lost money by the system. It was really not a money question with them at all, but entirely a question of what system was best calculated to serve the interests of the customers of the railway companies—the travelling public. Beyond all question, the railway companies were very anxious as to the effect of this proposed change upon the convenience of the public. They believed that they would have very much greater difficulty in the future in serving the public than they had
334
had in the past, and he was particularly anxious that in the event of any disturbance in the cab trade such as had happened before, the freedom of the railway companies should not be interfered with in doing their very best to serve the public. He thought the omission of the sub-section proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Stalbridge) might well go some way toward securing that object, but he hoped that it was distinctly understood that in the event of disturbances of that kind, the Home Office meant that the next sub-section might be brought into operation, and that any restriction which might hamper the railway companies in getting away their passengers from the stations would be suspended. He had every reason to believe that he would get that assurance, and he was most anxious not to deal with the matter controversially, but he hoped it would be distinctly stated on the authority of His Majesty's Government that they did not intend to hamper the railway companies in such a set of circumstances as he had indicated.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am glad to be able to give the noble Lord the assurance which he requires. The omission of this sub-section would neither enable the railway companies to organise a system of their own nor prevent them from doing so in the event of such a disturbance arising as the noble Lord has suggested. The position of the companies would be the same as at the present moment. The companies, of course, would not be able to grant preference in the admission of their own cabs, but since the very basis of the noble Lord's question is the suggestion that the other cabs would refuse to enter, the question of preference does not arise. I think that meets the noble Lord's question.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Exactly; but I wanted to know whether the next sub-section would be so used as not to stand in the way of our operations.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I beg your pardon. I ought to have mentioned that, but I am sure I may say that the Secretary of State would be quite ready, if the need for it is shown, to suspend the

335
clause, as he reserves to himself the power to do under Sub-section (2).
On Question, "That this House do not insist upon their Amendment to leave out Clause 2, to which the Commons disagreed," Motion agreed to.
On Question, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the Bill," Motion negatived.
LORD STALBRIDGEnext moved in page 2, line 17, to leave out all words after "affect" to the end of the subsection, and to insert certain words. He said that this Amendment met the point to which he had drawn the attention of His Majesty's Government last night. He thought the words proposed would enable the railway companies to a certain extent to deal with the difficulties which might arise under the future regulations. He begged to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 17, to leave out all words after the word 'affect' to the end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'liability of cabs or the drivers thereof to comply with any regulations or conditions which may be made by the company having control of the railway station for the purpose of maintaining order or dealing with the traffic at such station, including regulations as to: (1) the number of cabs to be admitted at any one time; (2) the rejection of cabs and drivers unfit for admission; and (3) the expulsion of any cabman who has been guilty of any misconduct or of a breach of the company's by-laws or regulations.'"—(Lord Stalbridge.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STALBRIDGEnext moved to insert in page 2, line 25, the words, "and shall remain in force up to the first day of January, 1910." He said this would give two years for the experiment. He would have preferred one year, but in deference to the wishes of the Home Office, the companies had accepted two years, and he thought that in that time they would be able to show, as had been shown in a former experiment, what the value of the Home Office suggestion was. He begged to move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 25, at the end, to add the words, 'And shall remain in force up to
336
the first day of January, 1910.'"—(Lord Stalbridge.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
Order of the day for the consideration of Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I ought to point out that owing to the short time which has elapsed since these Amendments reached my noble friend's hands, it is impossible for him to deal with them properly at the moment. And as I understand that the House is to adjourn shortly during pleasure, I suggest that the consideration of this Bill be proceeded with after the House has resumed, when we shall be able very soon to get through it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I understand that it would be a convenience to several Members of your Lordships' House if the debate on the Transvaal Loan Guarantee Bill were proceeded with.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWdid not know whether there was any material point in the Amendments to the Bill now before the House. He had looked through the Amendments which had been put down on a sheet of paper—naturally they were not on the Table—but he believed them to be merely verbal Amendments, to carry out certain transpositions rendered necessary by previous Amendments. But he would have thought that, the matter having been looked into by the officials of the House, the Amendments might be agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: May I suggest that the debate on the Transvaal Loan (Guarantee) Bill be taken now?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would like that course to be adopted because I do not like putting to the House Amendments as to which no one

337
has the least idea what they are, or what they are not. This kind of difficulty always happens under circumstances such as the present, and it is nobody's fault in the least.
Consideration postponed.

TRANSVAAL LOAN (GUARANTEE) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, this is a Bill of some importance, and even at this time of the session I suppose it will be desirable for me to make a short statement, and I will make it as short as I can, setting forth the reasons for which I ask your Lordships to read it a second time. The object of the Bill is to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of a loan to be raised by the Colony of the Transvaal, so as to enable the Transvaal Government to raise a sum of £5,000,000 on better terms than they would otherwise be able to obtain. On that I think there arise two questions—first, whether there are good reasons which justify them in making and us in accepting this proposal, and, secondly, whether the method which it is proposed to adopt for raising the loan is a reasonable one under the circumstances.
The purposes for which this loan is required are set forth in the First Schedule, and they are are follows:—In the first place for Land and Agricultural Bank, £2,500,000; and secondly, for railways, public works, irrigation, agricultural settlement and development, the balance of the loan. This Bill I may say follows the provisions of the Act of 1903, by which a loan of £35,000,000 was raised for the Transvaal, except that in this case the rate of interest is left entirely open; and the objects of the Bill, as stated in the schedule to which I have just referred are, as I have said, for services for the development of the Transvaal, which are partly
338
services similar to those for which the former loan was raised, but which are all development services and in accordance with the spirit of that Bill. I think it will be admitted that these objects are in themselves proper and legitimate objects. There may be some differences of opinion in regard to the creation of a Land Bank. I suppose in all parts of the world there are farmers who desire to raise money for the development of their holdings, and many do raise it without any help from the Government. So far as I am concerned, I do not deny that I have sympathy with those who show independence in such a matter. But, at the same time, there can be no doubt that a condition of general indebtedness among agriculturists is a matter of State concern. Certainly anyone who has had to do with the government of India will agree with that statement; and it seems to me also that different countries must be dealt with according to their different circumstances. The means which are proposed in this Bill are not the invention of the new Government of the Transvaal. The Land Bank, I think it is well known, has had the support of the High Commissioner, who appointed a Commission on the subject, which, I believe, has also reported in its favour; and I think I may say to the House, without impropriety, that it has constantly been urged upon me by Lord Selborne. The matter came before me soon after I entered office-But at that time the Government were committed to the consideration of the constitutional position, and it seemed to us that it would be right to reserve our judgment on the subject until the future Government of the country was determined and elected. But I am confident that had it not been so the question of the Land Bank would have been pushed to the front at that time. The only doubt in my mind is whether it would not have been pushed in a more pressing manner even than it is now. With regard to the Land Bank, as I have said, a Commission was appointed by Lord Selborne, which went into this question, and Lord Selborne not only appointed a Commission to report on the subject, but he himself has written strongly in its favour. I do not wish to delay your Lordships, so I will not do more than quote a single paragraph. In a despatch

339
which was addressed, not to me, but to my predecessor in office, he says—
"I hope that I may receive your sanction to such a scheme. It will be a most popular measure among the Boers themselves. Wherever I have gone, the farmers have pressed such a scheme upon me. It will almost certainly necessitate the raising of a loan by the Transvaal Government. What the amount of such a loan would be it is difficult to say; that is one of the points on which the Commission will guide me"—[the Commission had not then been appointed]—"but I do not think it could be less than one million sterling."
The Act which has actually been adopted by the Transvaal Government is a very elaborate one, with many restrictions and safeguards; and with an ample margin of interest on loans; and, if it is administered, as we believe it will be, with prudence and caution, I do not think there can be much risk of loss. To mention only one or two provisions in this Act, as regards security, no advance on freehold or quit-rent lands may-exceed two-thirds of the fair agricultural or pastoral value; no advance on leasehold of less than ninety-nine years, on occupation land, may exceed one-half the lessee's or grantee's interest; the covenants or conditions of the lease or grant must have been complied with; the land must be valued by an approved valuer, and his valuation must be placed on formal record; the Bank is given the fullest powers of a mortgage over the land on which money is advanced; interest is to be at 5 per cent., and the applicant must state the purpose for which the loan is required. So far, my Lords, with regard to the Land Bank. The other purposes which are mentioned in the Schedule are—for railways, public works, irrigation, agricultural settlement, and development; and of this a considerable sum, £600,000, is required to meet the liabilities of the Inter-colonial Council.
Your Lordships will remember that the Inter-colonial Council has had the spending of the £35,000,000 loan, and it has not now sufficient funds to carry out its obligations; £154,000 of the £600,000 is required to carry out the public works programme; £83,000 is required to complete the allocation in respect of land settlement; and about £350,000 is required for railway purposes. It is no doubt the general rule that the
340
Government of a self-governing colony must cut its coat according to its cloth, and must not undertake larger expenditure than that for which it can provide funds. But the position here is very exceptional. The new Transvaal Government has to take over these schemes which are incomplete. Some of them were initiated, not by the late Government of the Colony, at least not directly, but by the Inter-colonial Council, which, it will be remembered, brought together the interests of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. This is particularly the case with regard to railways and to land settlement; and the case of the latter, in which, as I know, many noble Lords in this House take a special interest, is very much to the point. Among the liabilities of the Inter-colonial Council is, as I have said, the sum of £83,000 that is now due to the Land Settlement Board established under the Letters Patent. It is absolutely necessary that the Land Settlement Board should receive this sum; otherwise it will be difficult for them to carry out their duties. They will receive it out of this loan if it is sanctioned. If the loan is not sanctioned there will be considerable difficulty. The assets of the Inter-colonial Council consist largely of advances in regard to which it seems inevitable that there should be some extension of time for repayment. The Inter-colonial Council have funds owing to them due to the fact that certain repatriation advances have not yet been recovered. It was expected that a sum of about £1,000,000 would fall in in the course of the present financial year. But in April last the Ministry determined that to call in these debts at that time would cause great distress, and they have, therefore, postponed the collection of the debts for a year. In July, 1905, it was estimated that the outstanding debt recoverable in June, 1906, was about £2,000,000; but it had been assumed even then that there would be considerable difficulty in collecting the debt, for this sum was only arrived at by deducting 33 per cent. for bad debts. Besides this £600,000 for the Inter-colonial Council, there are the liabilities of the Treasury, and I may mention the following as being also in a sense liabilities of the Government—that is to say,

341
£200,000 for the purchase of the Klerksdorp Fourteen Streams Railway, £250,000 for the Lydenburg Railway, £600,000 for other railway projects, including the relaying of the railway to Delagoa Bay, £100,000 for public buildings, £400,000 for irrigation, and £300,000 for agricultural settlement and development. It will be seen that there are, on the one hand, as the largest of these assets, the repatriation debts to which I have referred, which I need not remind your Lordships were loans to Boer farmers to enable them to recover from the effects of the war, and there are, on the other hand, the advances made for land and stock to British settlers. I think it must be admitted that the only way in which the Transvaal Government can meet the immediate necessities of the Inter-colonial Council and the Land Settlement Board is by a loan, and they are prepared to take that course and to act up to their responsibilities.
So far I have been dealing with the first question to which I referred at the opening—namely whether the purposes for which this loan is required are reasonable and proper purposes. I think I have shown that they follow directly from the purposes for which the loan of £35,000,000 was raised, and was granted to the use of the Transvaal, and I submit, therefore, that it is not an unreasonable thing that this extra loan, to complete the obligation so undertaken, should be raised, and raised in the same manner. As to the second point, namely, whether the methods by which we propose that this loan should be raised and guaranteed are reasonable, I maintain that we have followed the precedent of 1903, and that we have followed it for similar purposes.
We may be asked—I think it has been asked—whether the Colony can bear the burden. I think if I give you one or two figures that will be pretty clear. In the first place, there is the question of the present state of the debt. There are debts of approximately £13,500,000, which represent the acquisition of railways. That is productive. Six millions represents fresh railway construction and the improvement of existing railways. That again, I think, we
342
may count as productive. I may mention that since the war the railways in the new Colonies have increased from 1,109 miles to 2,565 miles, or 131 per cent. £2,000,000 represents public works; £2,500,000 represents the debt of the old South African railways largely arising from public works; and £2,550,000 represents expenditure on land settlement. Therefore, as things stand now, we have the existing debt of the Inter-colonial Council of £35,000,000. If we wish to restrict ourselves to the Transvaal, we must deduct the share of the Orange River Colony, which reduces the debt to £26,000,000. That is the present state of the debt, If we add the £5,000,000 now asked for, the total future Transvaal debt will be £31,000,000. That is £24 7s. per head of the whole population, or £103 5s. per head of the white population alone. That, as I have said, is largely productive expenditure, and I would therefore like to add a word or two as to revenue. The estimated revenue of the Transvaal in 1907–8 is £4,468,500. Of course that does not include any part of the railway revenue which comes under the Inter-colonial, Council. The estimated net revenue of the Central South African Railway for the same year—and I believe it was expected to be an unfavourable year—is about £1,250,000. This does not allow for the debt charges on the guaranteed loan, of which £750,000 is charged in the accounts of the Central South African Railway. It is not possible to say how much is earned in the Transvaal, and how much in the Orange River Colony; but of the line working at the end of 1906 between three-fifths and two-thirds were in the Transvaal, and if the net earnings be divided between the two Colonies in proportion to the mileage they contain, the Transvaal must be credited with upwards of £700,000, making the total Transvaal revenue for the year (which it is maintained is a year of depression), not less then £5,175,000.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: May I ask the noble Earl if that revenue from the railways has been maintained in the present year?
THE EARL OF ELGIN: This is an Estimate for the year 1907–8, the year which is not complete. I should like to refer to two opinions with regard to the ability of the Transvaal to bear an increased debt. I think I shall not be misrepresenting the noble Viscount on the cross benches if I say he has always been in favour of free expenditure on productive works in these countries.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I find that he has said on one occasion—
"We are in a position in which a considerable outlay on capital account is essential to any large growth of income. We must look forward for increased revenue to the increase of the sources of revenue, the growth of population and business, improved means of transport, and more productive agriculture."
VISCOUNT MILNER: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: These are objects which, as I maintain, we are seeking to foster by the loan that it is proposed in this Bill to raise. Then, if I may refer to Mr. Chamberlain, he arranged at one time for a total debt of £65,000,000, and he presented Papers to Parliament from which it appeared that the Transvaal after meeting the loan charges on £65,000,000 would yet have a surplus of £300,000. I think we are entitled to remember that in addition to the loan of £35,000,000 there was a proposal of a war contribution of £30,000,000, and that is the reason why I mention the sum of £65,000,000. If, according to the calculations of Mr. Chamberlain—and I believe they were assented to by the noble Viscount on the cross benches—the Transvaal could be reasonably expected to bear the burden of that debt, surely, then, it cannot be said that there can be any doubt that this loan of £5,000,000 is raised upon reasonable security.
There is one other fact which I think is worth mentioning, and that is that I believe at the time when the sum of £35,000,000 was adjusted and settled as the amount of the loan to be raised, the proposal was originally for a loan of £40,000,000. If that is so, and I believe it is correct,
344
we, in asking for the loan included in this Bill, are simply reverting to that proposition, and we do so, as I have stated and I think proved, for the same purposes for which the loan all along has been justified. Therefore, I claim that this Bill is justified by the circumstances. I maintain that it is reasonable and proper that the new Government should desire to complete the arrangements into which their predecessors entered, and for which the country has become responsible. Those arrangements were entered into with the approval and sanction of the Imperial Government, and therefore I think it is reasonable and proper also that the Imperial Government should continue to the present Government the support and approval which it gave to their predecessors. I believe that the security for the loan is ample, and therefore move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, "That the said Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Elgin.)
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I am most reluctant to detain your Lordships even for a short period in the present stage of our proceedings, especially in an academic discussion. There is, I take it, no one with the slightest idea of offering opposition to this Bill; but I should feel almost cowardly if I did not enter my protest, one word of protest, against this loan and against the whole policy of which it is the outcome. When I say that, I do not refer to the policy of granting self-government to the Transvaal. I stated my objections to that policy when it was first mooted, and I have nothing to retract. But it is an accomplished fact to-day, and every good citizen, whether here or in the Transvaal, must wish it to succeed, and must try to make it succeed. My view has always been that, while we should not be precipitate to grant self-government, yet having granted it we should abide loyally by the consequences of our own act, and abstain rigidly from all further interference in the domestic affairs of a self-governing Colony.
But this loan, as I shall hope to show, is part of a policy of continued interference and mischievous meddling in affairs which the people of the Transvaal

345
ought now to be left to settle for themselves. It is that which I object to—not self-government, but the departure from the principles of self-government which we ourselves have granted. I know there are a large number of people who hold the view, which is held by high authority, that the Mother Country ought never to guarantee the loan of a self-governing Colony. I cannot go that length. Everybody must admit that such a course is unusual. Precedents have been cited, but no precedent has been cited within the last thirty years; and that fact alone, I think, shows that the course proposed is a very exceptional one. Everybody will agree that it requires special justification. But I for one am not prepared to maintain that, if a strong case could be made out, the Mother Country would not be right in guaranteeing the loan even of a self-governing Colony, or that other Colonies would be justified in complaining on that account. But what I say is that it can never be right for the Mother Country to guarantee the loan of a self-governing Colony when the people of the Colony are not agreed upon the loan, when the question whether the loan ought to be raised or not is a burning question of domestic politics, and when, therefore, by stepping in and facilitating the raising of that loan the Government of this country is in effect taking part, and a very strong part, with one portion of the people of the Colony against another portion of the people. If the Government of the Transvaal, commanding a great majority of its legislators, is determined upon this exceptional expenditure, if it is determined to saddle this burden upon the back of the minority of the Transvaal, who are the people who will have to pay it, in spite of all their protests, I certainly do not suggest that we should interfere. The Government of the Transvaal are within their right, I do not dispute it for a moment; but they might surely be allowed to find that money for themselves. It is surely not our business to interfere, and to help them to saddle upon the backs of the industrial and the paying community a burden against which they protest, and, as I hope to prove, are perfectly right in protesting.
I object to being called upon to discuss the financial position of a self-governing
346
Colony; but it is not our fault that we have to discuss it; the blame rests with the Government which has dragged us into this business, which we had much better have kept out of. When they ask Parliament to guarantee the loan of a self-governing Colony they compel us to look into the financial position and to discuss it. And when we do look into it, what do we find? I am not going to trouble your Lordships with many figures, but the extent of the financial disaster which has overtaken the Transvaal Colony within the last two years is still so imperfectly realised in this country that I must call attention to a few leading-facts. I think that if there could be a valuation of all the assets of the Transvaal similar to valuations which are sometimes made in countries with highly organised statistical departments, like the United States, you would find that the value of all the assets of the country during the last two years had depreciated by something like 50 per cent. I have no doubt the fall has been heaviest in mining properties, but it is not confined to mining properties, it extends to all fixed properties, to lands, to houses, to everything which has permanent and substantial value. The fall in the valuation of the town of Johannesburg, entirely excluding the mining area, has been something enormous. I have been at the pains to take out the figures of the value as shown by the actual market price of seven of the leading industrial and commercial businesses in the Transvaal, and have compared the figures as they stood when His Majesty's present advisers took office, a few days before they initiated their famous labour policy with the first ukase which prevented further importations of coloured labour. I say I have compared the figures at which those businesses stood at that date with their figures last week. I beg to assure the House that I have looked only at concerns of the most solid character, concerns conducted with the most absolute integrity, the assets of which are notorious, and the accounts of which are open at all times to all the world. These are not wild cat or mushroom enterprises at all that I have looked into, and, moreover, at the time where my comparisons begin, December, 1905, they were not subject to any speculative inflation whatever; on

347
the contrary, they were already somewhat depressed, the shadow of coming disaster was upon them, and upon the whole industrial community. The value of those seven businesses in December, 1905, was £33,000,000 and to-day it is £17,000,000. If I had not taken some of the very best and most stable, the least speculative securities, if I had looked at what—if you will pardon the expression—might be called the "ruck" of Transvaal securities, the showing would be immensely worse. Do we realise what these figures mean? These businesses are the central pillars of the industrial and commercial fabric of that country. If in this country of ours the most first-class commercial and industrial businesses had fallen in less than two years by 50 per cent., and if the value of the whole of the industrial securities of this country contained in the Stock Exchange list had fallen by more than that amount, that would be the equivalent of the disaster which has actually befallen our latest Colony. And, my Lords, does it need proving? Will any man of financial experience, or any man of ordinary common sense, maintain that that is a state of affairs under which the Colony should take upon itself a new burden which would be the equivalent of something like a £100,000,000 issue of Consols if it were the case of this country—that it should take upon itself that burden, if it is one which can, by any possibility, be avoided?
Now just one word as to the question of the necessity of this loan. It has been sought to be shown that there were commitments of the previous Government—that there were inheritances from it in the shape of liabilities which the Colonies were bound to meet. It has been stated that the Inter-colonial Council was £600,000 short, and that this sum at least must necessarily be provided. Even admitting it were necessary to raise the £600,000 that is no reason for raising £5,000,000. But even this statement is, I venture to say, somewhat misleading. What is this £600,000 deficit of the Inter-colonial Council? It is a deficit only if the £2,700,000, which is owing to the Inter-colonial Council from the Boer farmers, be wiped out. It is not altogether unreasonable to suppose that the debts for Boer repatriation may not be
348
entirely recoverable, and I admit that they are not entirely recoverable, but it is not at all too much to ask that at least one-fourth of this debt should be repaid; and if only one-fourth of this debt were repaid you would have more than the £600,000 absolutely required.
One other word on this point of interest in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding. The noble Earl has argued at great length that the Transvaal is able to bear the burden of this loan. In one sense I agree with him. I agree that humanly speaking there is no danger that the interest on the loan will not be paid. But that is not the question. It is not a question whether you can by some possibility screw out of that depressed and half-ruined country the amount of the interest. It is a question of whether it is right or reasonable to do it, and, above all, whether it is fair to do it when the whole burden, or almost the whole burden, will fall upon that section of the population which is most strongly protesting against being exposed to the burden at all.
Now, lest I should be supposed to be taking too unfavourable a view of the finances of the Transvaal let me quote some authorities who are certainly not interested in representing the matter too unfavourably. I have already had occasion to refer to a speech of a leading Tansvaal statesman—I mean the Colonial Secretary—in which he used the following words—
"Our revenue has been falling off at a frightful rate for many months. The fall is progressive; there is no stoppage to it."
Since then we have had the Budget Speech of the Colonial Treasurer. What was the story he had to tell?—
"Every single item of revenue which reflects the trade and prosperity of the country is falling off enormously. Railway receipts are down by £600,000, or more than 12 per cent.; customs are down by £200,000 or more than 11 per cent.; Transvaal duties are down £44,000, or more than 35 per cent.; stamp duties are down £30,000, or more than 16 per cent."
I see now on the front Opposition bench the noble Viscount (Viscount St. Aldwyn) under whom it was my honour to serve at the time when he was in charge of the revenues of this country. I think he will be able to appreciate the significance of figures such as these. We used to be in a great fluster in those days if some

349
great source of revenue declined by even 1 percent., or 1·5 per cent. or 2 per cent. What would Lord St. Aldwyn say to declines such as those I have just quoted? With their revenue dropping to right and left of them, the Government of the Transvaal, as the Treasurer said—I quote his very words—in those words spoken less than a month ago—
"had taken steps to curtail expenditure in every direction. They had hoped that these reductions would be sufficient to equalise matters. But their hopes had not been realised. Although enormous reductions were sanctioned, it was found impossible to effect a balance."
The reductions were indeed enormous and most regrettable. Pour hundred officials have been retrenched, including some of the very best men in the service of the country. But it has been found desirable, or possible, to refill some of the vacant posts almost immediately by new and not that I am aware by better men, although there may be no reprehensible Anglo-Saxon ring about their names. But that is another story, and not a pleasant one. I am dealing now entirely with the financial point—the point whether it is wise at present to impose fresh burdens upon that country. The point is this, that the Transvaal in the financial year 1906–7, which ended on 30th June last, has for the first time since the war got a deficit. The Colonial Treasurer went out of his way to attribute the deficit to the extravagance of the previous administration. The extravagant and incompetent administration of which I was at one time the unworthy head, which took over the Transvaal after the war a total wreck and in three years set it upon its legs again, never had a balance on the wrong side in any one of the years I was there. It spent several millions out of revenue, over and above loan expenditure, entirely upon railway development and other public works which in every other Colony of the Empire are habitually defrayed out of loans, and handed over a substantial surplus to its successors, out of which this deficit of 1906–7 is now being defrayed, and which after defraying that deficit, still represents a sum which is now quoted, humorously enough, as one of the proofs of the capacity of the Transvaal to carry this new burden which is being imposed upon it. I
350
can confidently leave the financial record of Crown Colony government under Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Lyttelton to the judgment of history. The year 1906–7, with its novel deficit belongs wholly to a period subsequent to their administrations. But I do not wish to indulge further in polemics, recriminations, and speculations as to who is to blame. I look only at the present facts. The facts are these, that, despite great and cruel retrenchments, the Transvaal had a deficit last year, and that the estimates of revenue and expenditure for the present year show a further deficit, which is to be covered, and I believe it will be covered, by further sweeping retrenchments. The point remains that the Transvaal is, to all evidence, in the lowest of low water, and I say that this is not the time when it is fair to the people of that country to en courage them to undertake a burden which, relatively to the resources of the Colony, is a very heavy one.
But that is not, to my mind, the worst part of it. Despite all that has happened, I am a firm believer in the great potential wealth of the Transvaal. If this loan were associated with a sound economic policy I should not cavil at the amount, or even at a larger amount; though I might even then have a word to say as to the allocation of it, which seems to me open to serious criticism. But it is not associated with a sound economic policy. It is calculated to cover up the effects of a thoroughly bad one, and to lead people to further persistence in it. You are spending your money on the superstructure of the economic fabric, while all the time you are undermining its foundations. The prosperity of the Transvaal and South Africa is as dear to me as it can possibly be to any man. For all these objects to which the loan is to be devoted—Land Bank, railways, irrigation, settlements—I have, in my time, to the best of my abilities and my lights, striven hard for years, and I claim, with the generous support of His Majesty's Government and of the great statesman at the Colonial Office under whom I served, that I was instrumental in doing something substantial for the development of the resources of the Transvaal other than mining. But that does not in any way alter the fact that the mining industry is at the

351
present moment, and must be for a long time to come, the mainstay of the prosperity of the country and the feeder of every other form of activity and enterprise. That is the great, the supreme reason why you should do everything in your power to help it, or, at any rate, do nothing to injure it, for if left alone and accorded reasonably fair treatment, it will take very good care of itself. But during the last two years that industry has been subjected to an amount of meddling interference and arbitrary and unsympathetic treatment that would ruin any business in the world, however great and prosperous. And while that course is persisted in, it is my absolute and firm conviction that all money devoted to the development of other resources of the Transvaal will be money wasted. Take any item you like of this present programme. Take the case of the Lydenburg line, to which the noble Earl referred. It is a line which I am well acquainted with, and which in itself I absolutely approve. The line itself will not pay for many years. But I do not object to that. It does not matter, as I have said in similar cases over and over again, provided the agricultural district which it serves is benefited by getting to the market. It would pay indirectly if the produce of the agricultural district were brought to the market. But what market? Anyone who knows anything about the matter knows that, however much the agriculturists of the Transvaal may abuse the Rand, the one idea of them all is to get their produce to the Rand market. But what if that market is a dwindling one, as it is to-day? The bottom is knocked out of your whole policy of developing produce-carrying agricultural lines; and it is the same story in every other direction. I believe the Transvaal Government left to itself would very soon come to that conclusion. Whatever the difficulties in the way, whatever the prejudices with which it starts, whatever the obstacles arising from political and racial causes, it would very soon find out the necessity of taking into account the requirements of the industrial population and not merely perpetually promising to help them, but actually performing some of those promises. This loan is defended on the ground that
352
it is necessary to free the Transvaal from powerful financial interests. If the effect of the loan is to make the Government of the Transvaal think they can disregard financial interests, it will be a fatal gift indeed. The £5,000,000 will soon be spent. The supreme need of the Transvaal for private capital, not £5,000,000 but £50,000,000, will remain. I believe a great many people in this country have got Rand magnates on the brain. The magnates might go on strike, but if the Transvaal Government was pursuing a wise economic policy—a policy which would attract enterprise instead of scaring it away—there are capitalists all over the world who would be only too happy to take their places. For that the restoration of confidence is essential. So long as you do not get that restoration of confidence among the financiers of the world, so long you will see no prosperity in the Transvaal, and you are not justified in putting heavy burdens upon its depressed and half-ruined population. The worst advice which anybody can give to the present rulers of the Transvaal is to lead them to think they can carry matters with a high hand as regards the great mining industry and the great crux of the mining industry, the labour problem. Politically they are all-powerful. The industrial community is at their mercy; if they treat it without the slightest consideration, it can only languish and dwindle away, and in its decline it will involve the whole Colony in a common ruin. I will not anticipate any such disastrous results. I believe that common sense will yet prevail, and that people whose interests are so inextricably interwoven will learn somehow to live and work together with mutual consideration. But if that is to be the case, this must be the last attempt of the Government and Parliament of this country to interfere between them or to encourage the present rulers of the Transvaal to persist in a suicidal policy by seeking—vainly seeking—to render them immune from its consequences.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I will not attempt to follow the noble Viscount on the cross benches (Viscount Milner) into a subject which is peculiarly his own—that of the present condition of the Transvaal, the policy

353
of this Government or the reasons, from the point of view of the population of the Transvaal, against this loan. But I may say this—that only a few months ago I was myself in the Transvaal, and that naturally I took the best means in my power to become acquainted with the condition of the country, and I can entirely corroborate what has just fallen from my noble friend as to the painful condition—I can only describe it in that way—of depression which characterised Johannesburg, and the town population generally of the Transvaal. It does not, under such circumstances, seem to be a very advisable policy to increase the indebtedness of any country, and I must say that I heard with very great surprise that His Majesty's Government were intending to guarantee a loan of £5,000,000 to that Colony. All that I could learn when I was in the Transvaal as to the intentions of the present Government of that Colony was that a loan was the last thing they contemplated, that their intention was to pursue the strictest economy, that they found it absolutely necessary to reduce establishments of all kinds, and that they looked to that economy alone, if not for some revival of prosperity, at any rate, to being able to readjust their expenditure with their revenue.
It has been urged in another place that General Botha came to this country with the fixed intention of raising a loan under any circumstances. It may be so—of course, I have no knowledge of that. But I will venture to say that I do not for a moment believe that but for this guarantee General Botha would have carried out his intention of raising a loan, and the argument that was put forward by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies in another place in justification of the guarantee by His Majesty's Government of this particular loan was a very remarkable one. He is reported to have said that General Botha intended to raise a loan, that the circumstances of the Transvaal were such that a loan could only be raised on something like ruinous terms, that the loan would have been so raised, and would have become a trustee security, and that therefore, by guaranteeing this loan, His Majesty's Government were taking a step calculated to protect the interests of trustees and
354
investors in the United Kingdom. That was the most remarkable excuse for guaranteeng a Colonial loan that has ever yet been presented to Parliament.
I wish to address myself not so much to the wisdom of guaranteeing this particular loan, but to the general policy which I fear this guarantee may initiate. Unfortunately I was unable to be in the House when the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies was addressing it, but I am informed that he did not dwell—at any rate, to any length—upon that, as it seems to me, very important feature of the present proposal. I have always been taught, ever since I have given any attention whatever to finance, that it was the opinion of those who were the greatest authorities in dealing with the finances of this country that you could not be too cautious in guaranteeing a loan to a self-governing Colony, and for this obvious reason—that when you have entrusted complete control over taxation and expenditure to a self-governing Colony, and are utterly unable to interfere with either of them, the guarantee of a loan in itself tended to encourage extravagance in the self-governing Colony, and the expectation that a Colony would thus be saved from the consequences of its own mismanagement worked far greater evil than could be compensated for by any good which could possibly be done, unless under very exceptional circumstances, by any particular guarantee. Mr. Gladstone, Sir Stafford Northcote, and other financiers, I know, held that opinion very strongly; and so it has happened that during the last fifty years there have been, I believe, only six instances in which this country has guaranteed a loan to a self-governing Colony. I think it was in 1857 there was a guarantee to New Zealand for the purpose of the native war. The Colony was at that time in very difficult circumstances, and was at the beginning of its career. Altogether, the amount of the three loans granted to it was only £3,000,000. Three guarantees on later occasions were given to Canada—one for £3,000,000 for the Inter-colonial railway from Quebec to Halifax—a decidedly Imperial object; another for £300,000 for the purchase of Rupert's

355
Land, which also, I think I may say, was an Imperial object, and another of £3,600,000 for the Pacific Railway, and improvements connected therewith—another Imperial object.
But what is there Imperial in the objects for which this loan is to be expended? Just let us see what they are. In the first place, there is the institution of a Land and Agricultural Bank. I am sure the noble Earl is very well aware that the Transvaal is not the only self-governing Colony that is considering the initiation of an Agricultural Bank. There is a considerable demand for such a step in the Orange River and Cape Colonies, and I believe the Governments of both Colonies have had the matter under consideration. Why should the Transvaal Government be favoured in this respect more than Cape Colony or Natal? Are the finances of the Government of the Transvaal very much worse than those of Cape Colony or Natal? The noble Viscount (Viscount Milner) has quoted from the Budget speech of the Finance Minister of the Transvaal. I have had the opportunity of reading the Budget speeches of the Finance Ministers of the Cape Colony and of Natal, and I am afraid that those speeches presented quite as gloomy a prospect as that set forth by the Finance Minister of the Transvaal.
Then another part of the loan is to be devoted to the construction of railways, public works, irrigation, agricultural settlement, and development. Irrigation, public; works, settlement and development are wanted in every part of South Africa as well as in the Transvaal. Why is the Transvaal to be especially favoured? As for the railways, the particular railways which this loan is intended to further are the purchase of the railway from Fourteen Streams to Klerksdorp, and the improvement of the railway from Pretoria to Delagoa Bay. If it be the case, as I think it may very possibly be, that the Inter-colonial arrangements for the management of the railways will before long be put an end to, the result will be that the Transvaal will have a competing line to Cape Town through its own territory and the territory of the Cape Colony by
356
this very line from Klerksdorp to Fourteen Streams in competition with the railways of the Orange River Colony, and probably very much to their detriment. As to the line from Pretoria to Delagoa Bay, the fact is this. No doubt that line is a very valuable means of communication, and is much in need of improvements, but there is another line from Pretoria to Durban, through Natal, on which Natal has quite recently spent very large sums, which also requires considerable improvement, and which is in direct competition with the line from Pretoria to Delagoa Bay. Why are you going to guarantee a loan to the Transvaal for improving their line to Delagoa Bay, a foreign seaport, while you are not willing to do anything—and I do not suggest for a moment that you should do anything—to help Natal in improving their line from Pretoria to Durban, an English port, with which the Transvaal line is in direct competition? I am not finding fault with the expenditure of this money by the Transvaal, I am only urging that the expenditure is by no means an Imperial necessity; it is a local necessity. It is a very good thing, I dare say, for the Transvaal, but it is expenditure to be incurred either on objects equally desired and desirable in other parts of South Africa, or in direct competition with the other Colonies of South Africa who are promoting similar objects; and I contend that this circumstance is a very grave objection to the Imperial guarantee of the present loan.
Just look what it lays us open to in all parts of the world. Are you going, if any self-governing Colony applies to you for a guarantee for similar objects, to give an Imperial guarantee for these loans? If not, what sort of feeling will you arouse in other Colonies—which may have equal need of similar assistance—if you refuse to them what you have given to the Transvaal? Why is the Transvaal entitled to this specially favourable treatment? Only three years ago, at the close of the War, while the Transvaal was a Crown Colony, we guaranteed £35,000,000 to set the Transvaal on its legs. That was a very necessary thing, but it was an act of the greatest generosity to the Transvaal and its people: and to put that fact forward, as it has been

357
put forward, as a reason for guaranteeing this further loan is to embark on a most dangerous argument. Because, if we are to go on referring to the guarantee of past loans as a reason for guaranteeing further loans, then I am afraid that the anticipation of my noble friend on the cross benches (Lord Milner) will be fulfilled, and that when the Transvaal purse is empty again, the Transvaal Government will again come to the Imperial Government for similar assistance. I contend that in this policy, for which, so far as I can see, there are really no sufficient grounds at all, His Majesty's Government have set a very dangerous example to the self-governing Colonies of the Empire. I trust that before this debate is concluded we may hear something from the Government to prove that they recognise that anything like a regular system of guaranteeing loans to the self-governing Colonies is a most dangerous proceeding on the part of this country, as regards the liabilities of our taxpayers, and very bad for the Colonies themselves, as encouraging them in extravagance at our cost; and that under these circumstances there is every reason for the Government of this country to pause before they impose further liabilities of that kind on the taxpayers of this country.
LORD LOVAT: I only wish to say a very few words on one aspect of this question, and that is on behalf of the settlers. The responsibility to the settlers is a responsibility which lies equally on both sides of the House. I have frequently wearied your Lordships by advocating in this House the cause of the settlers. They have been placed on the soil during the last four years, and they are men who have fought against the conditions arising from the nature of the land and the soil, and from the fact of their going to a country which was unknown to them. And I think, in connection with this loan, their position requires to be closely studied.
My Lords, I would like just to go back for a moment to ask you to compare the attitude of His Majesty's Government in granting a loan to the Transvaal in August, 1906, with the character of the loan which is to be granted in August, 1907. In 1906 Lord Selborne, speaking
358
as the mouthpiece of His Majesty's Government, and by their instructions, issued a letter of which I would ask the leave of your Lordships to read a paragraph. Lord Selborne said—
"In respect of land settlement, the Government feel that they have a special obligation to those who became settlers during the period when they have been directly responsible for the Governments of the two Colonies, and it is a matter in which the United Kingdom takes a great interest. They would therefore like to see land settlement placed under a Board appointed by themselves and altogether divorced from politics, and to that Board they would like to see handed over the responsibility for all existing settlements, for the administration of the assets derived from the £2,500,000 guaranteed loan which has been devoted to the subject of land settlement and for the expenditure of the further sum of £1,500,000 which His Majesty's Government suggest should be devoted to this purpose from the new loan."
This was the policy of the Government exactly a year ago—a £4,000,000 loan, of which £1,500,000 was to be used for land settlement in South Africa. These were the terms upon which His Majesty's Government at that time were prepared to guarantee this loan. What are the terms to-day? The noble Lord the Minister for the Colonies has stated to your Lordships the terms of the proposed loan, and so far as the settlers are concerned there is to be spent out of this loan the magnificent sum of £85,000, of which, £40,000 is a natural debt to the land settlers, £18,000 is a claim which the land settlers can make with respect of what they have not been paid, and some £10,000 has to go to the Orange River Colony. £68,000, there-force, of this is already allocated, leaving the magnificent sum of £17,000 which is all that is got out of this loan of £5,000,000 for the settlers of this country.
I must say a word on the subject of "bargains," because the subject has been so often raised in another place that really one believes there must have been some bargain. If there is a question, it has either been a bargain in which the Chinese have come prominently forward, or it has been the worst bargain that has ever been struck. This proposition that. I have quoted—the £4,000,000 proposition—was brought forward last year. The leaders of the Boers were asked their opinion of it, and declined to accept it. They came for

359
another loan this year, and presumably it would have been possible to get some terms for the settlers out of them, because, as the noble Lord (Viscount St. Aldwyn) who speaks with such authority on subjects of finance, has stated, it would have been impossible otherwise for them to have raised this loan. And yet here it is—this miserable £85,000 which is all that is given to the Land Settlement Board to conduct the affairs of these wretched settlers.
Lord Elgin, in a statement of 14th November of last year, stated that he certainly hoped and intended that sufficient sums would be available to carry on the work of the Imperial Board. Are there sufficient sums? We have seen that the sums that these men would get would come from the Repatriation Loan and the hire of the land themselves, and were to come, in the second place, from the Inter-colonial Council. With an Inter-colonial Council which is bankrupt how much money is going to come from them, and from these men, who have undoubtedly had their land originally over-valued, who took it under circumstances under which they paid for their stock and implements at enormously enhanced prices—what chance have we got of any sufficient return from them to make the Imperial loan a going concern? May I take an exact parallel between the men who started under our lands settlement scheme and those who were under the œgis of the Boer Government? In a statement made two days ago by General Botha he said—these are his exact words according to the report which has come over to this country—"The Goverment intend"—that is the Transvaal Government—"to put an end to the repatriation debt"—a debt of £2,719,000, That debt is to be put an end to. Have we heard anything said here, or have we heard of any possibility, of putting an end to the debt of these settlers, who started, after all, on the land on no better terms than the repatriation Boers did on returning to their land? Have we heard anything to the effect even that their land was going to be re-valued in order to give them a chance? I do not, any more than Lord Milner, object to the fact that an end is to be made of the debt of the Boers on the Repatriation Loan.
360
They undoubtedly paid more for their oxen, more for their implements, and found it more expensive to live in every way than before, and were saddled with many difficulties which were in no way their own fault. But is not the condition of the settler absolutely similar? Is there any fact to show that His Majesty's Government take the very least interest in what the fate of these men is eventually going to be? There has been, I admit, a Land Settlement Board appointed for a term of five years, but Land Settlement Boards are surely a perfect farce unless they have some money to administer in order to look after the welfare of these settlers.
I would like to ask a question or two of the Colonial Secretary. I admit I do not very much expect an answer, because unfortunately I am not in the habit of getting answers to any of the conundrums which from time to time I feel it my duty to put to the Government. Still, I put forward these questions which I put forward exactly a year ago in identical terms. I put them forward in the hope that perhaps by now some solution may have been arrived at. I would ask the noble Lord first, if he could give me some intimation as to the income the Land Settlement Board will have; and I would ask him in the second place whether there is any intention in future in view of General Botha's expressed intention of practically abolishing the Repatriation Loan, of estimating or re-valuing the land of the settlers who hold under practically identical terms? I would ask the noble Lord further about this £500,000 which, after all, is the property of the Land Settlement Board in South Africa. Three millions was voted for land settlement, but only £2,500,000 has been expended, leaving a residue of £500,000, which should be the property of the Land Settlement Board for administration and to carry on the work. I would like to press those questions because, after all they turn on one central question, and that is, are His Majesty's Government going to give equally fair terms to settlers under the Land Settlement Board as the Boers are going to get from their own Government at the present moment? The settlers—and I have had many opportunities of knowing this in

361
the numerous visits I have paid to South Africa, and I also know from the numerous letters I have from them—wonder more than at anything else at the apparent hypocrisy of the Government in announcing as a fact that they are going to give them a Land Board, while they give no money to carry out what should be done by that Board. They say that the Government have abandoned their policy of land settlement, and that now they have definitely abandoned the settlers themselves.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: While they are fresh in my head, my Lords, I will try to answer the questions which have been put to me by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lovat). I think he is under some misapprehension with regard to the comparison he drew between the £4,000,000 mentioned in Lord Selbome's letter of last year and the £83,000 which I referred to as coming out of the assets of the Inter-colonial Council. The £4,000,000 was a proposition which was put before the Colony, and not accepted, and it therefore died a natural death. The £83,000 I only drew attention to because I wished to show that the sum which was really due from the Inter-colonial Council to the Land Board should be paid—I did not say that that is the whole amount which is available for land settlement purposes. The noble Lord must be quite well aware that the Letters Patent laid down quite distinctly what property it was intended to hand over to the Land Settlement Board for the time of their existence, and so far as I know there has been no deviation from that policy. But with regard to the sum of £83,000, that is a sum which ought to be paid by the Inter-colonial Council to the Board and must be paid in fact if the Land Settlement Board is to carry on its work, and I hope will be paid. There were some other questions which the noble Lord put, and I am sorry to hear that he never gets any answers, because I endeavour to give him answers as far as I am concerned. He asked me on the spur of the moment to tell him the income of the Land Settlement Board and other details, but I am glad that he summed up his questions by asking a further question which he
362
called a simple one—whether the Government were prepared to give equally fair terms to the settlers as the Boers were prepared to give to their friends. The Government dealt with the land settlement question in the Constitution, and the noble Lord knows that, as I have said, the Government then handed over to the Land Settlement Board all the funds at our disposal. We had nothing more to do with the matter. After the term of the Land Settlement Board's existence the question of land settlement will have passed into another phase, which is described in the Letters Patent. But I believe—I speak, as I say, without any previous notice, but I believe, from some of the facts which I have had put before me previously, that one of the difficulties arising with regard to the whole question of funds is, not only the repatriation loans, but the re-valuations which have been forced upon the Government in the ease of the settlers also. That, I believe, is the case, but I would not like to be taken, without further inquiry, as giving any more specific answer.
I really do not think it would serve any useful purpose if I attempted to follow, or reply in any way to, the speech of the noble Viscount on the cross benches (Viscount Milner). The noble Viscount approaches this matter from an entirely different standpoint from that of the Government. He is responsible, giving him all the credit which he claims, for the good work which he has administered in South Africa; and I may remind him perhaps that in recent papers which have been published a statement appeared showing how great and extensive that work was. We are perfectly willing to recognise the good work which has been done since the War by the Crown Colony Government, but there are very many things, if this was the proper time to go into them, which we should have to criticise, and I must not be taken to accept the statement which the noble Viscount has made as being in any sense a fair prophecy of the future of the country.
With reference to the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount St. Aldwyn) I should just like to say this. We entirely recognise that it would be a dangerous thing to adopt any general policy

363
of guaranteeing loans to self-governing Colonies, and nothing is further from our intention. The noble Viscount said that he was not in the House when I was speaking before, but if I made anything clear, I attempted, at any rate, to make clear this: that we treat this matter entirely as justified by the exceptional circumstances of the case. It is not, I hope, probable that any other Colony will come before us to seek help in its recovery from such a war as that which devastated South Africa; and I endeavoured to show that this loan of £5,000,000 was intended, not as a new thing, not as establishing any new system or practice, but rather as a matter thrust upon us in order to bring to completion the work which the late Government undertook, and for which it gave South Africa what I quite agree with the noble Viscount was the liberal and generous assistance of £35,000,000. No doubt that was given to a Crown Colony, and that is, of course, one of the exceptional circumstances of the case. But, my Lords, I think under the whole circumstances of the case that we were justified in considering that this was a singular instance in which we might depart from the sound rule which the noble Viscount laid down, and give to the new Government of a new self-governing Colony the assistance which this guarantee affords. I have now answered the noble Viscount as far as I am capable of doing, and I hope that the Bill may now be passed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly. Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 2a (according to order). Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bills read 3a and passed.
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
Commons' Amendments to Lords Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Order of the day for Second Reading read.
LORD DENMAN: This is a Treasury Bill which, I think, I am right in saying is generally formally moved and not debated at any length in your Lordships' House; but I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that the sum taken for the purpose of public loans this year is smaller than that of previous years, because it has been found necessary to place restrictions upon the advancing of loans by the Treasury to local authorities; and also it is noteworthy perhaps this year for two other exceptional circumstances, in that power is taken in this Bill for the loan of £2,000,000 for the Nigerian Railway and for the sum of £800,000 advanced to Jamaica. I am desired by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is concerned with both of these particular measures, to say that if any noble Lord desires any information on these particular subjects he will be very glad to afford it. I do not think there is anything else of a noteworthy character in this Bill, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." (Lord Denman.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: The only two points I would wish to refer to in this Bill are the two Colonial loans to which the noble Lord, Lord Denman, has just alluded. The loan to Jamaica is a proposition with which. I think, all your Lordships will sympathise. The sufferings of Jamaica were very severe, and that the Mother Country should come to the help of the Colony in such a case is a very sound proposal. As to the Nigerian Railway, I think we are entitled to some little explanation from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is rather curious that the proposal should come from noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen who bitterly opposed the Uganda Railway not very long ago. The Uganda Railway is likely to turn out a very considerable success, and I hope the Nigerian Railway will be equally fortunate. I understand that this line, unlike the Uganda line, is to be constructed as a

365
light railway in a very cheap manner. That might be a cheap policy at first, but I venture to doubt if it is a sound policy, assuming, of course, that you have a complete survey of the line, and know exactly the possible gradients which engineers can arrange in the country through which it has to be taken. The traffic, which, of course, will be small at first, will increase in the future, but there is a good deal of work in the construction of a line which had better be made at first than by waiting for a future opportunity, and I am not quite sure the Government have not gone to the opposite extreme in this proposal. I have nothing to say against the principle of either loan. I do not doubt that opening up Nigeria in the manner proposed will stimulate the growth of cotton and an interest in this country in one of our possessions which will be of great advantage both to Nigeria and to the United Kingdom, and I wish every success to the undertaking. I am not quite sure there is any precedent for placing two such important proposals in the Public Works Loans Bill; that is another point on which I should like some information to be given. This Bill is generally a Bill for providing funds solely for loans to municipalities in the United Kingdom, and therefore passes through both Houses with very little comment. These are two proposals of a very different and of a very important nature, and it is quite conceivable that similar proposals in a Bill of this kind may be made to Parliament some day to which objection may be taken, and which it may be very difficult properly to deal with. I hope it may not be made a regular practice when loans of this sort are intended to be given.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I was not prepared to make a very detailed statement on this subject. I knew, of course, that the Bill was coming up, but I did not know that the noble Viscount opposite would call attention to it. With regard to the last point he mentioned, of course that is a matter rather for the Treasury than for me. I cannot very well discuss the propriety of extending the provisions of the Public Works Loans Bill to these cases of the Colonies, but I think that they are exceptional
366
and that the two cases which are now before the House show that they are exceptional. For instance, the case of Jamacia, I think everyone will admit, is exceptional, and after what the noble Lord has said I do not imagine I need dilate on that part of the subject. It was a satisfaction to His Majesty's Government to be able in this way to meet a calamity, or to help to meet a calamity, which had befallen one of the most ancient of our Colonies, and we trust not only that it will restore the prosperity of the Colony, but that we shall be able to be recouped of the sum which we advance under this Bill. With regard to the Nigerian Railway, I think I can, even on the spur of the moment, give some explanation which may perhaps satisfy the noble Viscount. It is quite true that the Uganda Railway was the subject of very considerable criticism in former times, but in a statement which I made to the House not very long ago—perhaps the noble Marquess opposite will remember—I gave a return for the three years showing how that railway was recovering its position or making its position in the matter of receipts. No doubt that does not mean that it is yet paying the capital cost, and that is a matter which has to be borne in mind in saying that it is now becoming a success; but for my part I do not hesitate to say that I believe there is a great future before the Uganda Railway and its extensions in those districts. With regard to the Nigerian Railway, the matter stands in this way. Not so many years ago Nigeria was a pathless wilderness. That we have been able to establish our dominion in that country is principally due to that great pioneer of civilisation, Sir Frederick Lugard, whose operations had necessarily to be conducted on foot, and every pound of whose stores had to be transported on the heads of natives, and that is the condition of the country largely to this time. Two years ago Sir F. Lugard put forward schemes in anticipation of a railway running through his province, but these schemes had to be very carefully considered at home, and before a decision could be come to in regard to them it was necessary for him to bring his long service to an end; and his place was supplied by one

367
who may be called the pioneer of railways, Sir Percy Girouard. The scheme now before your Lordships is in part a pioneer railway, but only in part. The portion of the Nigerian Railway in respect of which £2,000,000 sterling are to be advanced under this Bill is really to be in two sections. One section, which was in Sir Frederick Lugard's mind, is to run from Baro on the Niger, through Zungeru to Kano and Zaria, all in Northern Nigeria. That is to be constructed as a pioneer line; that is to say, though it was surveyed two years ago, though it follows a proper survey, and will be constructed with gradients and otherwise so as to suit a fully constructed line in the future, it will in the first instance be constructed with the least possible expenditure, with no stations, signals, and so forth which are scarcely necessary for a line that will at most run two trains a day. But that is only part of the scheme. We have also another line of railway, which has already proceeded a considerable way from Lagos to Jebba on the Niger, and this scheme provides funds for the extension of that line also. I am not quite sure whether the £2,000,000 under this Bill will absolutely meet the whole cost, but of course it will take some years fully to complete the construction of the scheme, which, when it is fully completed will be not only the line of Sir Frederick Lugard from Baro northwards, but also the line from Lagos to Jebba on the Niger, where it will cross by a bridge and couple up with the line through Zungeru. The pioneer line is estimated to cost £3,000 a mile, and the other line is being constructed at something like £6,000 a mile. It has now reached practically the boundary of Southern Nigeria, and is about to pass into the district of Northern Nigeria, which is south of the Niger River. There is another financial consideration I ought to mention. The Government of Southern Nigeria at present contributes to the assistance of Northern Nigeria, to which there is a large Imperial grant-in-aid, a grant in aid on its own account of some £75,000, out of which it is proposed to meet the interest on this sum of £2,000,000. Eventually the Southern Nigerian Government will replace the advances made under this Bill by a loan, but so far
368
as the interest is concerned the Southern Nigerian Government will be relieved of the same proportion of the £75,000 contributed to the expenses of Northern Nigeria as is accounted for by the interest on the loan. We think that in the particular circumstances of this country that is a fair arrangement. There can be no doubt that eventually Nigeria, Northern and Southern, must become one large Colony from the sea to the interior, and when that is so these railways will one and all become the property of the Government of the Province as a whole. We have great expectations from this side of Africa as well as from the East. Those who are experts in Lancashire have great expectations of the future of cotton-growing in Nigeria, where it is no new industry, as there are traces of a considerable trade which existed in days gone by, and we think that these railways will not only diminish the expenses of government, increase the opportunities of spreading civilisation, and facilitate the process of administration, but in the not far distant future may afford a very wide field for contributions towards that great staple on which so much of the trade of this country depends.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly. Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed.

SMALL SHOPS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged.
SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL; EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Report from the Committee of the reason to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to one of their amendments, read, and agreed to; and a Message sent to the Commons to return the Bill with the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments and the reason for disagreeing to one of the Commons Amendments.
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment made by the Lords to the Amendment on which the Lords do not insist agreed to; with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendment made by the Commons, and the consequential amendment made by the Lords to the Bill, agreed to.
CABS AND STAGE CARRIAGES (LONDON) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendment made by the Commons agreed to.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with several of the Lords Amendments agreed to; one of the Lords Amendments agreed to, with an Amendment; and one of the Amendments made by the Lords, disagreed to; but an Amendment proposed in lieu thereof.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In regard to the Small Holdings Bill there are only two points of difference outstanding between the two Houses. The first of the two points is this. Your Lordships, in Clause 21, page 10, line 20, inserted a proviso that "no dwelling-house shall be erected for occupation upon any allotment of less than three acres." The Commons agreed to that Amendment, but proposed to leave out "three acres" and insert "one acre." That is the first point which arises between your Lordships.
EARL CARRINGTON: I beg to move that the House agree to the Commons Amendment leaving out "three acres" and substituting "one acre."
Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I cannot say that I like the change, but, on the other hand, the Amendment is better than
370
the Bill as it stood originally, and at this stage of the proceedings I imagine that your Lordships will desire to agree to it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The second and only remaining difference between the two Houses is as follows. Your Lordships will recollect that on the First Schedule, page 25, line 40, the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, moved an Amendment. I do not know that I need read it to your Lordships, but it was an Amendment providing that any matter of difference before the commencement of the tenancy by compulsory hiring should, on the application of one of the parties, be referred to an arbitrator with the proviso that the Board might discriminate as to what was the extra cost involved in going to arbitration. The Commons disagree to that Amendment, but propose to insert in lieu thereof other words on the First Schedule, page 25, line 17, providing that if the land hired is in the occupation of a tenant he may, by notice in writing to the council before the termination of his tenancy, require any claim by him under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1906, to be referred to an arbitrator under those Acts, and that in such a case those claims shall be determined by arbitration under those Acts and not by valuation under this Act. That is the second and only remaining point of difference between the two Houses.
EARL CARRINGTON: I beg to move that this House do not insist on the Amendment to the First Schedule, page 25, line 40, and agrees with the Commons in their Amendment to the First Schedule page 25, line 17, to insert certain words.
Moved, "That this House do not insist on the said Amendment."
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: After what passed on this matter this evening I did not anticipate that His Majesty's Government would agree with my Motion,

371
but I own that I did expect that they would have gone somewhat further than they did in the direction of allowing arbitration in certain cases in the interest of the tenant. That point was very much pressed upon your Lordships, and, I think, quite rightly pressed by my noble friend Lord Onslow, who has taken such a very active part in the matter of small holdings generally. I think that your Lordships felt that the interests of the tenant had been much neglected in the past proceedings on this Bill, and that the matter which my noble friend and myself brought to the notice of the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture, was one that well deserved the consideration of the Government and required an Amendment in the interests of the larger tenant farmers whose land may be taken under this Bill. The noble Lord on the Woolsack rather damped our expectations by saying that the Amendment which His Majesty's Government were prepared to accept did not extend to the matter of severance. I understand that the Solicitor-General has explained in another place that if a yearly tenant had to give up his whole farm, practically there would be no claim for severance by way of compensation to him, and, if he remained as tenant of part of the holding compensation would practically be settled under the provisions of the Bill by a change in the rent which he would pay. I wish that the Amendment which has been accepted by His Majesty's Government had gone somewhat further, but I think in the interest of the tenant it is better than nothing, and I imagine that your Lordships will not desire to insist on the Amendment which was placed in the Bill, but will accept what is proposed as being certainly an improvement on the Bill as it originally stood.
LORD CLINTONsaid the noble Viscount who had just spoken had accepted this Amendment as in some way a concession to the tenant farmer, but he (Lord Clinton) rather doubted whether it was a concession at all. Was it not the case that a tenant
372
farmer at the present moment could claim compensation by arbitration for all improvements on his land? Whatever the Amendment said, in this Bill a sitting tenant at present was entitled to compensation for all his improvements under the Agricultural Holdings Act. He hardly thought the Bill would have altered that without repealing the Agricultural Holdings Act. Might he ask the Lord Chancellor to tell the House whether that was not the case?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has asked me off-hand, and I will tell him off-hand what I think. I think it is undoubtedly true that a tenant under the Agricultural Holdings Act would be entitled to compensation by arbitration, but that is where a question arises between him and his landlord or the incoming tenant. Now the Bill comes in and comes down upon the transaction and interposes from the outset. My recollection and belief is that the arbitration clause in the Agricultural Holdings Act does not apply to the case where the tenancy is terminated otherwise than between the landlord and the tenant, but undoubtedly compensation would in this case and in any case be payable under the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, "That this House do agree with the Commons in their proposed Amendment to the First Schedule, page 25, line 17, to insert the words, 'Provided that if the land hired is in the occupation of a tenant he may, by notice in writing served on a council before the termination of his tenancy, require that any claim by him against the council shall be determined by arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1906, and not by valuation under this Act.'"
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Eleven o'clock till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.