Sitting of 10 July 1908

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill [Lords]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time upon Monday next.
Leicester Corporation Bill.—Lords Amendments considered; Two Lords Amendments amended, and agreed to.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
Taff Vale Railway Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Wath and Bolton Gas Board Bill [Lords]—Read a second time, and committed.
Pontypridd Water Bill [Lords] (by Order).—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Galashiels Drainage and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill; Wye Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.
Usk Fisheries Provisional Order Confirmation Bill.—As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill (by Order).—Read the third time, and passed.
Commons Regulation (Towyn Trewan) Provisional Order.—Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Inclosures Acts, 1845 to 1899, relating to Towyn Trewan Common, in the county of Anglesey, presented by Sir Edward Strachey.
Commons Regulation (Towyn Trewan) Provisional Order Bill—Ordered, "That, in the case of the Commons Regulation (Towyn Trewan) Provisional Order Bill, Standing Order 193A be suspended, and the Bill be read the first time."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Commons Regulations (Towyn Trewan) Provisional Order Bill—"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Inclosures Acts, 1845 to 1899, relating to Towyn Trewan Common, in the county of Anglesey," accordingly road the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 313.]

PETITIONS.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Balsall Heath, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Dursley, London, Port Dinorwic, and Tondu; to lie upon the Table.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Nigg, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petitions in favour: From Larbert, and Lesmahagow; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Royal London Friendly Society.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Registrar-General has promised to make inquiry into the methods adopted by the committee of management of the Royal London Friendly Society to secure the conversion of the Society into a company; and whether he will make representations to the Registrar-General to refrain from registering any resolution passed at a meeting of the society for the purpose of such conversion until such inquiry has been made.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse). If the hon. Member will refer to the Answer which I gave to my hon. friend the Member for Skipton last Tuesday he will see that the Answer to the first part of his Question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the Question, I understand that no special resolution has yet been passed, and I cannot give any undertaking beforehand about an event which has not taken place. The whole matter, however, is receiving the most careful consideration, and I can assure the hon. Member that no action will be taken by the Chief Registrar without all due weight being given to any representations he may receive from the various parties interested.

  Post Office Servants—Efficiency Reports.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the wording of the form of certificate which has to be given by a superior officer in the Post Office service in reporting on a subordinate has been altered more than once during the past ton years; what was the nature and what was the object of the successive alterations, if any, and. were such alterations, if any, the same as those made by other Government departments, or were they, so far as he is aware, made only in respect of the Postal Office staff; and, if they were made only in the Post Office, is there any authority for treating Post
  216
  Office servants in respect of increments differently from other Civil servants.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The only alteration which has been made in the form of certificate prescribed by Clause 20 of the Order in Council of the 29th November, 1898, consists in the addition of words introduced to guard against the supposition that approved conduct might exist apart from efficient work. I cannot state what steps other Departments have taken to secure that approved conduct is understood to comprise efficiency.

  Liquor Licences in the United States.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the rates of duty charged on liquor licences in the States of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York; whether he can give the total sums annually raised by such duties for each class of licence and the number of such licences in these high-licence states; and, if he is not in possession of the facts, whether he would request His Majesty's Embassy at Washington to supplement their Report No. 657, of 1907, by furnishing the information.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The scale of principal payments demanded in the States of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York, in return for a licence to sell liquor, is as follows:—

  Massachusetts.

  Class.

  Fees per annum.

  £

  First Class:—To sell liquor of any kind to be drunk on the premises, not less than

  200

  Second Class:—To sell malt liquors, cider, and light wines not containing more than 15 per cent. of alcohol, to be drunk on the premises, not less than

  50

  Third Class:—To sell malt liquors, or cider, to be drunk on the promises, not loss than

  50

  Fourth Class:—To sell liquors of any kind not to be drunk on the premises, not less than

  60

  New Hampshire.

  Class.

  New Hampshire.

  Fees per annum.

  First Class:—

  To sell liquors of any kind to be drunk on the premises (to be issued only to inn-holders).

  At the discretion of the State Board of Licensing Commissioners

  Not more than £200, nor less than £5

  Second Class:—

  To sell liquors of any kind in quantities less than five gallons to one person at one time.

  In cities having a population of—

  £

  40,000 or over

  240

  18,000 to 40,000

  160

  10,000 to 18,000

  120

  Under 10,000

  80

  In towns whoso population exceeds 2,500

  60

  In all other towns

  50

  Third Class:—

  To sell liquors of any kind not to be drunk on the premises.

  In cities of over 40,000 people

  160

  In cities having between—

  18,000 and 40,000 people

  120

  10,000 and 18,000 people

  60

  In cities having a population less than 10,000

  40

  In towns whose population exceeds 2,500

  30

  In all other towns

  20

  Fourth Class:—

  To sell malt liquors, cider, or light wines containing not more than 15 per cent. of alcohol, to be drunk on the premises.

  In cities of—

  Over 40,000 people

  120

  18,000 to 40,000

  100

  10,000 to 18,000

  80

  Less than 10,000

  50

  In towns whose population exceeds 2,500

  40

  In all other towns

  30

  New York.

  Class.

  —

  Fees per annum.

  First Class:—

  To sell all liquors to be drunk on the premises, or in quantities of not loss than five gallons to be drunk off the premises.

  If in a city or borough having a population of—

  £

  s.

  d.

  1,500,000 or more

  240

  0

  0

  Less than 1,500,000, but more than 500,000

  195

  0

  0

  Less than 500,000, but more than 50,000

  150

  0

  0

  If in a city or village having more than—

  50,000, but more than 10,000

  105

  0

  0

  10,000, but more than 5,000

  90

  0

  0

  If in a village having less than 5,000, but more than 1,200

  60

  0

  0

  If in a village having less than 1,200

  30

  0

  0

  Second Class:—

  To sell all liquors in quantities less than five gallons not to be drunk on the premises.

  In a city or borough having a population of—

  1,500,000 or more

  150

  0

  0

  Less than 1,500,000, but more than 500,000

  120

  0

  0

  Less than 500,000, but more than 50,000

  90

  0

  0

  In a city or village having a population of less than 50,000, but more than 10,000

  60

  0

  0

  In a village having a population of—

  Less than 10,000, but more than 5,000

  30

  0

  0

  Less than 5,000, but more than 1,200

  22

  10

  0

  In any other place

  15

  0

  0

  Profit on Barrel of Beer.
  MR. STEWART-SMITH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have fixed a sum of 10s. per barrel, and, if not that sum, then what sum as the profit per barrel of beer in cases of reference to the Commissioners under The Licensing Act, 1904, Section 2.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) No fixed rate of profit per barrel has been adopted by the Commissioners in determining awards of compensation, as profit varies according to circumstances.

  Control of the Boyne Navigation Canal
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Board of Public Works in Ireland have handed over the control and ownership to a public company of the Boyne Navigation Canal between Drogheda and Navan; what is the name and who are the directors of the company; whether, before parting with the control of a waterway which is essential to the prosperity of the district, the Board imposed conditions on the company binding them to keep the canal navigable and in thorough repair; and if he will furnish the hon. Member for North Meath with a copy of the conditions imposed.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The hon. Member will find all the information for which he asks (with the exception of the names of the present directors of the company, of which the Board of Works has no knowledge) in the Boyne Navigation Transfer Act, 1896 (Local Acts 59 and 60 Vic, cap. xcvi.), and in the agreement scheduled thereto.

  Service of Belfast Postal Officials.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Postmaster-General what is the length of service of each officer of the classes of assistant superintendents and overseers in the postal branch and in the telegraph branch at Belfast; how many years service each had on attaining to his present position; and how long each has been in his present position; what is the length of service of the first six sorting clerks and telegraphists in each branch, including and excluding those passed over; and what was the average length
  222
  of service of officers of this class who, without previous pass over, were promoted to the class of overseers in either branch during the past four years.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It does not appear to me that the trouble involved in obtaining the Return asked for by the hon. Member would be justified, as the information would not be of any public service.

  Unnecessary Overtime of Female Postal Servants.
  MR. WILKIE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on the 18th and 19th of June, female telegraphists at Dundee were detained on duty until 9.45 p.m.; and, whether, seeing that the Hobhouse Committee recommended that work by the female staff should seldom be prolonged after 8.15 p.m., and in view of the fact that men were available, he will make inquiry with a view to preventing any unnecessary detention of the female staff.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am having inquiry made, and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state on how many occasions during the three weeks ended the 6th June a female telegraphist at Belfast, named M'Mullan, was detained on overtime from 6 p.m. till 7 p.m. without opportunity for taking food after 2 p.m.; on how many occasions the same officer was allowed ten minutes for tea during the same period and under the same circumstances; and whether the assistant-superintendent in charge of the instrument room had authority to punish her for over-staying ten minutes on one occasion.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have no knowledge of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. The complaint appears to be one that should be made to and dealt with by the postmaster of Belfast.

  Imprisonment of Women Suffragists.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary of £ State for the Homo Department whether

  223
  relatives of the women suffragists now in Holloway are being refused permission to see the prisoners; and, if so, whether he will see that this restriction is relaxed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) These prisoners are necessarily treated under the prison rules. If any exceptional reasons for departing from the rules in individual cases are brought to my notice I stall be ready to consider them.

  Acquisition of Untenanted Land on the McCartie Estate.
  MR. J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are now prepared to take steps to acquire the untenanted land on the McCartie estate, county Kerry, which is now for sale in the Land Judge's Court; whether this land is urgently needed for the evicted tenants and for the enlargement of holdings in the district; and whether he will impress on the Commissioners the necessity for taking action to procure the land without delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I refer to my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question of 25th June, when I stated on the authority of the Land Judge's Court that no portion of the estate referred to consists of untenanted land. If, therefore, the Estates Commissioners should purchase the estate, they cannot buy any portion of it as untenanted land.

  Deductions from Salary of Teacher of Meelick National School.
  MR J. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a sum of £7 was deducted from the salary of the teacher of Meelick National school, Eyrecourt, county Galway (Roll No. 4974) for the quarter ending the 30th September, 1907, because the average fell to 9·4 owing to the weather being very wet and the roads of the district impassable with floods; whether he is aware that the manager wrote twice to the Commissioners for the balance of the salary so deducted, and was refused; and whether, in view of the fact that the average for the year was 11·1 and that the fall in the September quarter was due
  224
  to exceptional causes, be will see that the Commissioners pay the teacher the balance of the salary deducted; and whether he will get the rules (115, e, f,) of the Commissioners, under which this action was taken, removed or modified so that stoppages of salary will not be made when the fall in average was due to exceptional causes.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Under the rules the deduction in question is mandatory; and it is provided by Rule 115 (f) that, in the case of schools of the class to which the Meelick National school belongs, no claim for special consideration can be entertained on account of a reduction of the average attendance due to exceptional causes. I cannot say at present whether it would be possible to have this rule modified; but I will look into the matter.

  Transfer of Belfast Police Officers.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state under what circumstances eight Protestant police officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed in Leopold Street Barracks, Belfast, are to be transferred to counties; and if, before these transfers are carried out, he will order a sworn inquiry to be held, and thereby give an opportunity to the officers concerned to make their defence.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) The Inspector - General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that, in the interests of discipline, he has ordered the transfer of six men from Leopold Street Station to other districts. Five of the men are Protestants, but the question of religion had no bearing on the matter. The Answer to the latter part of the Question is in the negative. The entire matter is one for the decision of the Inspector-General.

  Land Purchase Advance—Case of Mr. Richard Wallace.
  ME. REDDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total amount of the advances for the purpose of land purchase already made or recommended 1 in the case of Mr. Richard Wallace, of Belfield, Shinrone, King's County, tenant.

  225
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify the particular case referred to in the Question unless fuller particulars are given.

  Congestion in Ireland.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with any legislation dealing with the Report on congestion in Ireland; and, if so, will it be prior to or after the Autumn Recess.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have nothing to add to the reply which was given to the hon. and gallant Member's Question on this subject on 4th June last.

  Irish Universities Bill.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state definitely the dates on which it is intended to take the Report stage and Third Reading of the Irish Universities Bill now reported from Standing Committee C.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Report stage will be taken on the 23rd and 24th July, and the Third Reading will be taken, as Second Order, on 25th July.

  Condition of County Meath.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at the recent commission of assize for county West Meath held in Mullingar, Mr. Justice Gibson was refused any report as to the general condition of the county with regard to peace and order by the officers of the police, that the report handed to him was confined to specially reported crimes only, although in other counties information was given to the judge dealing with cattle driving, boycotting, and other forms of similar intimidation; and can he state why this information was withheld in this instance.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that Mr. Justice Gibson was supplied with the full returns of crime for the county, in the usual form, and that, in accordance with the established
  226
  practice, the county inspector was present to afford any explanation of the returns and to give any further information as to the state of the county in his possession which the learned Judge might require. I am not aware of any foundation for the suggestion that information was withheld from Mr. Justice Gibson, and, so far as I am aware, the learned Judge himself has made no suggestion to that effect.

  Reinstatement of John Dorgan of Graigebeg.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from John Dorgan, 'of Graigebeg, in the Poor Law union of Croom, in the county of Limerick, who was evicted by the landlord, Grady F. Conyers, from his farm in the year 1883 for the non-payment of a rent of £100, the Poor Law valuation being £33; whether the landlord's son has signed an agreement to purchase this holding under the Land Act, 1903; and, if so, what action do the Commissioners propose to take in reference to it; and how and when do they intend to deal with the evicted tenants application.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received from John Dorgan tin application for reinstatement as representative of his deceased father, who was the evicted tenant. The tenant's interest in the evicted holding was acquired by an undo of the landlord, who subsequently assigned it to his son, and a purchase agreement signed by the latter has since been lodged. The Commissioners have no power to interfere in the matter, but Dorgan's application for a holding will be considered upon the distribution of any untenanted lands which the Commissioners may acquire in the district.

  Grants to Hugh Madden of Oristown.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Hugh Madden, of Oristown, Kells, county Meath, to whom the Estates Commissioners recently gave a small farm on the Farrell estate, at Robertstown, has applied for a grant to enable him to build a residence; and

  227
  if his application, will be favourably considered.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received the application and will consider it in due course.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill): Colonel Sir Ivor Herbert; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Ellis Davies.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Ellis Davies.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
Sir GEORGE WHITE reported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills; That the parties opposing the Local Government Board Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill had stated that the evidence of Hugh Worthington Adams, coroner for the North-West Division of Staffordshire, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Hugh Worthington Adams do attend the said Committee on Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That Hugh Worthington Adams do attend the Committee on Group K of Private Bills on Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
Sir GEORGE WHITE reported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties concerned, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

ANTICIPATORY MOTIONS. A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE.
MR. SPEAKERcalled upon. Mr. Asquith to move the following Resolution of which notice had been given: "That, until the adjournment for the autumn holidays, Government business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though, opposed; that, at the conclusion of Government business each day, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that no Motions be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11."
*MR. EVELYN CECILrising to a point of order, said: I have a Motion down on the Paper for 31st July which proposes to discuss the undesirableness of doing the very things which the Prime Minister now wishes to do. I consider that my Motion is the more important because of the unprecedented abuse which the Government have made of the closure procedure of the House this session. In the "Manual of Procedure," issued under the high authority of the Clerk at the Table, it is stated that—
"A Motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for the consideration of the House, or a Motion of which notice has been already given and not withdrawn."
I imagine it will not be disputed that the Prime Minister's Motion, at any rate, anticipates the matter which I desire to discuss, and would respectfully submit that my Motion has been already appointed for the consideration of the House because it appeared on the Notice Paper on 23rd June. I moved it after eleven o'clock, it was objected to, and then on my request, you from the Chair fixed it for 31st July, I think that this part of my contention is covered by the ruling of Mr. Speaker Brand on 27th May, 1875, and there are other rulings also which seem to bear on the subject. Mr. Speaker Brand said—
"It is irregular to propose any Motion which anticipates discussion of a matter already appointed for consideration by the House."
I should also like to submit to you, in relation to the statement in the "Manual of Procedure," that the Prime Minister's Motion anticipates my

229
Motion, which is one of which notice has been already given and not withdrawn. It seems to me that my Motion comes precisely under these terms, for I have given notice of the Motion, it deals with a matter the Prime Minister now wishes to deal with, and I have not withdrawn my Motion. I find that Mr. Speaker Denison on 13th July, 1871, said—
"The hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) is not in order in introducing on the present Motion questions which would arise upon a future Motion of which notice has been given."
I think the Prime Minister is bound to introduce on this Motion a subject which would properly arise on the Motion of which I have given notice, and under these circumstances I very respectfully submit to you that the Prime Minister's Motion to-day is not in order.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was kind enough to give me notice that he intended to raise this point, and I have gone as carefully into it as I can and looked through the precedents. I am clearly of opinion that one notice of Motion cannot act as a block on another notice of Motion. If so the whole business of the House would come to a standstill. Where there are two notices of Motion dealing with the same matter the fact that one stands for to-day, and the other stands for to-morrow does not prevent to-day's Motion coming on, and lam sure that the hon. Member will search the books and the records in vain to find a case of that kind. The hon. Member has called my attention to two cases in which my predecessors have laid down a rule. Dealing first with the one of 27th May, 1875, where, when a notice of Motion on the subject of strangers present at debate was brought forward, Mr. Speaker Brand said it was Ids duty to inform the House that by the rules of the House it was irregular to propose any Motion which anticipated discussion upon matters already appointed for the consideration, of the House. That I conceive to be, so far as it goes, a perfectly accurate statement of the rule against anticipation. In my opinion, the added phrases which appear in the "Manual" go really somewhat beyond the rule, as laid down from the Chair in former days.
230
Then the hon. Member says that his Motion is in regard to a matter already appointed for the consideration of the House. There I do not agree with him. The hon. Member did not move his Motion. He rose in his place and was prepared to move it, and was going to move it, but, objection being taken, the Motion could not come on. If the hon. Member will refer to the Votes and Proceedings he will find no record whatever of the House having ever fixed the date for 31st July. The hon. Member fixed his own day. When he called out "31st July," I so informed the clerks at the Table, but if he looks at the Votes and Proceedings he will find that there is no record of his having moved the Motion, and, indeed, it could not have been put from the Chair because there was no seconder, and until a Motion is seconded, it cannot be put from the Chair. Therefore the House was never seized of it and the House has never appointed a particular day for its consideration. Therefore the Motion of the hon. Member does not come within the ruling of Mr. Speaker Brand of 27th May, 1875. With regard to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Denison of 13th July, 1871, Mr. Speaker Denison said—
"The hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth is not in order in introducing on the present Motion questions which would arise upon a future Motion of which notice has been given."
That was clearly not an identical matter. Of course, the rule is perfectly clear that on a Motion for the adjournment, either upon a matter of urgency, or for the holidays, a matter of which notice has been given, even although it has never come before the House and no day has been appointed by the House, a matter which it is proposed to raise at some future time for debate—cannot be discussed on a Motion for adjournment. That is a well-recognised rule which has been acted upon a great many times, and that is the case to which the hon. Member refers, for he will see that the case of 13th July, 1871, was a Motion for the adjournment of the House. That is very often the case. I will not say it is of daily or weekly occurrence, but it is of monthly occurrence in this House. I hope I have made this matter clear to the House. It is perfectly clear to myself

231
that in the case of two competing Bills dealing with, the same subject — one cannot block the other; two competing Motions dealing with the same subject—one cannot block the other; but if discussion has been entered upon on one of those Motions and a day fixed by the House, that fact would act as a block against the second one being discussed.
LORD R. CECIL: I would like, Mr. Speaker, to ask one or two Questions, merely for the purpose of elucidating the ruling which you have been good enough to give to the House-I do not know whether your attention has been called to a ruling of Mr. Speaker Denison of 25th June, 1871, in which he says—
"There is a Rule of the House that when a matter has been expressly set down for consideration no hon. Member can anticipate it by raising a discussion on the subject."
That certainly would appear in its terms to cover the case raised by my hon. friend to-day. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] When a matter has been expressly set down, I submit to you, Sir, that is a reason why on Motions for adjournment under Standing Order 10 and on Motions for adjournment for holidays, no discussion has been allowed in respect of any matter in respect of which a Motion stands on the Paper of the House, and it does not matter whether any date has been fixed or whether the Motion merely stands for an early date. With regard to the question raised by my hon. friend as to 27th May, 1875, I would point out that there were then three Motions on the Paper, only one of which was moved by Lord Hartingdon, as he then was, and the other two were merely given notice of, but never entered upon. In the course of the discussion on the first Motion a difficulty arose, and it was adjourned until a particular day. Nothing was said about the other Motions, nor was the House seized of them. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker Brand said the mere fact of the existence of these Motions precluded another hon. Member from moving a Motion dealing with the same subject. I merely desire to submit this point.
*MR. SPEAKER: With regard to the first Question, I do not see that it is in any way inconsistent. The ruling there was that when a matter had been expressly set down for consideration no hon. Member could anticipate it by raising a discussion on that subject. I construe the words there in the same sense as they were construed by Mr. Speaker Brand. "A matter already appointed for consideration by the House" means by the House itself—not a Member merely naming a day. With regard to the Question arising on 27th May, 1875, there were three Motions of which Lord Hartington gave notice; and in his speech he said he proposed to deal with all three together. He made a speech covering the whole ground. It is perfectly true only one Motion was put from the Chair, and therefore it might very well be urged that the second Resolution, which had not been entered upon or discussed at all, could not operate as a block. But Mr. Speaker Brand was careful upon that occasion, I observe, to say that the three Motions, although separate, read together constituted the order of the day, and, if so, it is not for me to say my predecessor was wrong, as the facts were all before him; and I daresay he thought there was sufficient connection between the three Resolutions really to constitute them one Order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,)in moving the Motion of which he had given notice in regard to the business of the House, said: The Motion which stands on the Paper in my name is one which we have for a long time been accustomed to have moved at this season of the year; but before the House is asked to assent to it it may reasonably require to be informed both as to the length of time over which it is meant the suspension of our ordinary rules should extend and what matters legislative or otherwise are intended to be brought within the scope of its operation. May I say by way of preface, speaking for myself, I am strongly opposed to the suspension of the eleven

233
o'clock rule, except with the genera consent of the House, or in case of real necessity. I think the length of time which we spend, not only in this Chamber, but also in the discharge of the growingly heavy work which is assigned to Committees, is quite a sufficient tax upon the energies and the strength of even the most zealous Member amongst us. I think I may fairly claim that during the past session there have been as few extensions of our normal sittings as, perhaps, in any session in recent times. Therefore I should not propose this Motion now unless I thought it one for the general convenience of the House and a matter of necessity. Some weeks ago I expressed a hope that this part of the session—an autumn sitting being inevitable—might be brought to a close in July. I am sorry to say that that anticipation will not be precisely realised, but it will be realised as nearly as may be, because we propose to ask the House to adjourn on Saturday, 1st August. It follows, therefore, that there are now only three available weeks of Parliamentary time before the end of this stage of the session. In order to submit to the consideration of the House the manner in which the Government propose that the time of the House should be occupied, I may perhaps say one word by may of general survey of the position of public business. Whatever judgment may be passed as to the character and quality of the work done I think everyone will admit that this has been an extremely and exceptionally busy session. If we make allowance for the inevitable loss of time that occurred immediately before Easter, I think the amount of work done reflects the greatest credit upon the industry of all sections and parties in the House. We have passed already—I am speaking now of Government business alone, for the e have been very valuable private measures dealt with—we have already disposed of two Scottish Bills, the Prosecution of Offences Bill, two Public Health Bills, and, last night, the Old-Age Pensions Bill. The Children Bill, after a most exhaustive examination — and I do not think any Standing Committee has ever clone its work better—has now reached the Report stage. The Irish Universities Bill ism a similar position. The Scottish
234
Education Bill in the course, of next week will also have passed through the Committee stage. The Port of London Bill is under the consideration of a Joint Committee of both Houses, and, though I am afraid we cannot anticipate that we shall finally dispose of it before the adjournment, I think it certainly will be passed during the autumn sitting. That shows a great deal of legislative work done by the House and a number of measures of first-class importance either disposed of or on the eve of passing to another place. The practical question now is, How are we to dispose of the three weeks that still remain before 1st August Let me, first of all, enumerate the Bills which must pass into law before that day. We must dispose of the financial business by getting the remainder of Supply, and then the Appropriation Bill and the Finance Bill, through the Committee and Third Reading. Next we hope to dispose finally, so far as this House is concerned, of the Irish Universities Bill. Then there is the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill which must necessarily be passed at this season of the year. There are the Fatal Accidents Bill, the Committee stage of the Patents and Designs Bill, the Housing of Working Classes (Ireland) Bill in the Report stage, which we hope to get through this afternoon; and there are two or three other small Bills it will be necessary to get through, the Registration Bill in reference to the alteration of date of the Revising Barristers Court and the Friendly Societies Bill included. There are other small Bills we hope to get through, and these supply the main reason for asking the House to suspend the rule. It is desirable that we should get them through, and I hope we shall do so with general consent. I do not ask for the suspension for the purpose of pressing controversial business; that, I think, would be an abuse of the privilege we are asking for. But it will be a great convenience if at this period of the session we are able to dispose of measures which meet with general assent or are of Departmental importance, and are not at the mercy of one or two Members who, for some reason, by their speeches, may prevent progress being made. There are three Bills, I may

235
mention, as coming within the category it is desirable we should pass, the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Bill, the Post Office Savings Bank Bill, and the Telegraph (Construction) Bill. A number of small Bills, mainly relating to Ireland, such as the Seed Potatoes and Seed Oats Supply Bill, I hope the House will allow us to pass before we adjourn. This completes the legislative business to which we shall ask the attention of the House during the next three weeks concluding this period of the session. This is not the occasion to anticipate the business for the autumn session; but the House will observe that I have left open a reference to a particularly important addition to our legislative proposals in regard to the Licensing Bill. We propose before we adjourn on 1st August to submit a Procedure Resolution for the allocation of time for that Bill and to devote two days to the Committee stage. Further progress with that Bill and with other measures we leave over for the autumn session. I do not think the programme I have outlined makes an excessive demand on the time of the House for the next three weeks. It will involve one effective Saturday sitting—there will be a sitting on Saturday, 1st August—the Motion for adjournment being made the day before—when we will take the Appropriation Bill; but it involves one effective Saturday sitting—the last Saturday in July. Unless we have this, there will be great difficulty in getting the Third Reading of the Irish Universities Bill, which I am sure a large majority of the House—on this side certainly—will be glad to dispose of. I regret to propose Saturday sittings, but, with this exception, I do not think the programme I have sketched makes an excessive call on the time and patience of Members, and I hope with this explanation the House will assent to the Motion I now make.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, until the adjournment for the autumn holidays, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; that, at the conclusion
236
of Government Business each day, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that no Motions be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11."—(Mr. Asquith.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not disposed to quarrel with that part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement in which he has told us that the actual number of additional hours we are asked to sit before 1st August is not excessive. Toward the end of July, or, to speak more correctly, toward the last few weeks of the session, the House is accustomed to lengthen the hours it is usual to sit at other times; and, as the Prime Minister has given a distinct pledge that he means to take no controversial business, I do not think he has gone beyond demands which have been made by his predecessors so far as the actual strain on the time and attention of Members is concerned, during the few weeks before the adjournment. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that the occasion when a Motion is made for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule in July has for a long series of years afforded a fitting opportunity for comment upon the work and action of the Government. I do not mean to go in detail over this large and fruitful field, but there are one or two observations I must make. The first relates to the amount of legislative business the Government insists upon the House dealing with, and the results of their demand. It has been one of the customary and familiar taunts—so customary and familiar that it has rather lost its sting now—that anybody who protests from this side of the House against the overcrowding of the Government's legislative programme does so because he does not want any legislation at all. Well, there is a great deal of proposed legislation I think undesirable, but it is not with the general proposition what legislation we want that I now wish to deal, but with the manner in which legislation is conducted. I would ask the Government and the House generally whether they seriously think that the task imposed is one the House can carry out effectively It is perfectly natural that a new House of Commons, eager for legislation, should overrate the value of positive legislation

237
and underrate the injury to Parliamentary methods by overcrowding the Order Paper. The protest I now venture to make I feel I could not have made with the same effect to an audience which would have been entirely unsympathetic in an earlier period of the life of this House; but I ask now, is it not evident to the most casual observer that if we attempt to deal with so many Bills as we are asked to deal with, those Bills are not all properly discussed and are not discussed by people who ought to discuss them The system of Grand Committees, immensely developed as it had been by the present Government, has many potentialities in it, and I by no means condemn it unreservedly; but it is liable to two great evils, the imposition of undue burdens on Members who serve on these Committees, preventing them from attending the more general discussions within these walls; the other is that a certain number of Members are excluded, practically excluded, though not by Standing Orders, from taking part in what is considered by many the most important stage in our discussion of large measures. I say nothing about the Leader of the Opposition, whose services may not be required or important on these Bills. I never attend the Committees—I have not time—but it is quite impossible that anybody holding the office of Prime Minister can take any part in guiding deliberations in Grand Committee. That is a great evil. I do not attend Grand Committees. It would be impossible for me to attend here if I did; the same disability applies to the Prime Minister; and, I am told, also applies to the Law Officers of the Crown. I do not say that they absent themselves from Grand Committees, but I do distinctly say that the o work the House has been accustomed to get from the Law Officers by way of advice and assistance on legal points cannot be given by those officers in Grand Committee, and either a great deal of work must be done without their assistance or the number of Law Officers must be increased o there is no other alternative. I doubt whether any of the older Members of the House or new Members who have been working at the conduct of legislation since the general
238
election will think I am in the least overstating my case when I say that the amount of business sent to Grand Committees has had the double effect of overworking a large number of the most laborious and energetic Members of the House, and has excluded from an important stage—some would say the most important stage—in Parliamentary proceedings some Members of the House whose advice and assistance has always been given in Committee of the Whole House, and is not and cannot be given in Grand Committee. That is one result of overcrowding legislation, and the other is that we are working now practically under a permanent system of closure. I do not mean to go into that question now. The Prime Minister has informed us that he intends to move one of his habitual customary Closure Resolutions a few weeks hence in reference to the Licensing Bill, and then I shall revert to the history of the system and its effect on Parliamentary proceedings. But nobody, on whichever side of the House he may sit, can con-template the proceedings during the last few weeks on the Pensions Bill with entire satisfaction. Discussion in this House has enormous value in modifying and improving Bills, but it has been hampered, truncated, and in some cases wholly destroyed by the system which has now become not merely familiar, but almost universal in the hands of the present Administration. I will say no more on this theme now. I shall have to return to it again. ["Hear, hear."] I do not know who it was who ironically cheered my statement; but I am quite certain that the hon. Member, if he habitually attends the proceedings, will know' that every word I have said is absolutely justified. I do not say more on that point now, but I now come to another point which is strictly germane to the general conduct of business and one on which there will be no very convenient opportunity of saying anything to the House in the future—I mean the conduct of Supply. I may be permitted to remind old Members of the House and to inform new Members of one or two facts which they should bear in mind in considering this question. Our present Supply rule was brought

239
forward by the late Government, and it introduced a profound, and, I am inclined to think, almost unqualified, reform into our procedure. I do not say it is unqualified—no change is unqualified—but I am quite sure it has few defects and has been of enormous advantage to the general work of the House. Before the Supply rule was introduced the amount of time that might be taken up by Supply was only limited by the powers of endurance of individuals Members of the House. Supply was accumulated in great blocks at the end of the session, when the less industrious Members had gone to more agreeable occupations. It was carried on night after night in the small hours, and, while there was an immense expenditure of time, of temper, and of health, there was really no adequate discussion of the matters brought before the House. The new rule did two things—it limited the number of days that could be devoted to the ordinary Supply of the year to a number between twenty and twenty-three, and it provided that those days should be distributed week by week through the whole course of the session. The result of this was that there was no topic on which it was proper to criticise the Government for the discussion of which an opportunity could not be found; and instead of the Government being able, at the cost of the time and health of Members, to get through all this bulk of matter at the end of August, they were obliged to stand face to face with the House of Commons, week by week, and to stand the shock of hostile criticism. So much for the Standing Order. But outside the actual terms of the Standing Order there was an understanding arrived at across the floor of the House by the then Government that the actual topic to be selected week by week for discussion in Supply was, broadly speaking, to be determined by the critics of the Government on either side, but in the main by the Opposition to the Government. That rule was most carefully maintained under the late Government. Every week there was a consultation between the Government and the Opposition Whips, not as to what Supply it would be convenient to the Government to put down, but what Supply it would be convenient to the Opposition to discuss.
240
In other words, the Government, week by week, gave the Opposition an opportunity of selecting the topics most agreeable to the Opposition, and therefore, by natural inference, most disagreeable to the Government. That was the understanding, and as the Government and all those Members who have served in other Parliaments are well aware, that understanding was carried out in the letter. But I have seen with some alarm a desire on the part of the Government to evade this understanding. Perhaps that word conveys an implication I do not wish to make. I will say that the Government have shown a desire to escape from that understanding, the maintenance of which is, I am convinced, the only condition on which the Supply rule can be thoroughly and effectively worked. I understand that the reason in more than one case when we have asked for certain Votes to be put down and our suggestion has not been acted upon—I understand the reason in many cases has been that a new Minister had come into office and that he was not competent to deal with details which a Minister in charge of a Vote must have at his fingers' ends if he is to answer criticism properly. I quite agree that the Prime Minister has been in some difficulty in that regard. There have been a great many changes of office, and it is perfectly true that a Minister suddenly brought into a wholly new office neither can nor ought to be expected to make himself, within a few days, master of all the details of questions which the Opposition may legitimately discuss, or to know how to answer the innumerable points which may be raised by industrious criticism in Supply. I do not wish to press this point beyond what is fair to the Government, and if the right hon. Gentleman tells me, as I hope he will, that he entirely recognises the historic accuracy of the account I have given of the original arrangement, that he means to carry it out in the letter and in the spirit, and, further, that the only thing that stood in his way and prevented him from carrying it out has been the changes in the personnel of Ministers in charge of the different Votes, I shall say no more; but I shall expect that next session the old method

241
will again, be put in force, and that the weekly criticism of the Government will be arranged on lines which will give proper opportunities to the Opposition. There is one other point connected with Supply which has nothing whatever to do with any arrangement under the Supply Rule, but it has to do with a practice which is now becoming habitual with the Government, namely, the habit of choosing the inferior limit of possible days for Supply rather than the superior limit. Under the Supply rule not more than twenty-three days can be given to Supply, and not less than twenty; but it rests with the Government of the day to say which limit shall be adopted. So far as I remember, there was only one session under the late Government in which they did not give the extra three days for Supply; but I believe that in two out of the three years of the present Government's existence the minimum number and not the maximum was given. I do not know what the justification of that is. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that there are a great many topics that still require discussion in Supply, and for the discussion of which an opportunity could be found if the Government would give twenty-three days to Supply instead of twenty. If twenty days only are to be allotted, we have only five days remaining, and within those five days must be discussed, or left un-discussed, the Home Office Vote, one of the most important Votes, as I think everybody will agree; the Education Vote, which not only involves a sum of nearly £14,000,000, but touches on subjects which create equal interest in every part of the House; the Board of Trade Vote, and the Local Government Board Vote, which, next to the Home Office Vote, probably touches most nearly the social life of the people. The Local Government Board Vote was not discussed at all last year. Is it going to be hitched in somewhere among the Votes of immense importance I have ventured to bring to the notice of the House Then there is the Post Office Vote, involving £18,000,000, and we have really not yet had any adequate discussion of the Colonial Office Vote or the Foreign Office Vote. It is true there was a discussion on the day before the Whitsuntide holidays on the Foreign
242
Office Vote, but that discussion was not devoted to a general survey of the foreign policy of the Government, but was rigidly restricted to the one topic of His Majesty's visit to Russia. That was a separate discussion which might have been taken on the Motion for the Adjournment for the holidays or on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and it was only put down for discussion on the Foreign Office Vote for convenience. Thus the Foreign Office Vote has not really been touched, and certainly there are questions which ought to be raised upon it. With this limitation of time the exclusion of some topics is, I quite admit, an inevitable result of the Supply rule, even when the number of Supply days is limited to twenty-three. There must be topics every year which cannot be discussed; but when you limit the number of Supply days to twenty, then it is not open to the Government to say they have no more time. They have more time, and I think they ought to give it. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to ask the House to meet again in October, why can he not give up one of the days which are to be devoted to the Committee stage of the Licensing Bill? That does not endanger such prospects of life as the Licensing Bill may possess. The guillotine Resolution will presumably limit the amount of time we give to it, and whether that guillotine Resolution be moved at the end of July or on 12th October makes absolutely no difference to the prospects of the Bill in Committee and on the Report stage in this House. I remember asking a friend of mine why the Government were going to cut the discussion of the Licensing Bill in half. The answer given was that the Government thought it necessary to prove their sincerity to the country, and their sincerity could not be adequately proved unless they took some vigorous action before they went to the seaside. Surely it is quite vigorous action enough to pass a guillotine Resolution which says that the House is not to discuss the Bill in Committee stage for more than nineteen days, and with that mark of Napoleonic vigour, I should have thought the Government might really be content, and there would at all events be one more day for this much needed work of Supply. The House will

243
see that, broadly speaking, my criticisms come to this. I do not complain of the actual strain of the work which the Government are going to throw upon us before 31st July. I do say, however, that, by curtailing our means of criticism and by overwhelming us with legislation which we are never allowed to deal with in detail, they are inflicting an injury, I hope not a permanent, but a serious injury, upon the efficiency and credit of the House.
MR. ASQUITH: Perhaps it will be convenient if I at once rise to make a short reply to the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman. My omission to mention the date at which it is proposed that the House should resume was not accidental, but intentional, because I hoped we might get through this discussion without any allusion to so painful a topic. I may say that we propose that the House should meet on Monday, 12th October. [Cries of "Oh!"] Apparently I was not wrong in my anticipations as to the feelings which such a topic would excite. The right hon. Gentleman's first point was that the manner in which the system of Grand Committees is worked imposes an excessive strain on Members generally. In the next place, he said that it excludes from an important area of discussion Members who would be very glad and are well qualified to take part in such discussion. Of course there are evils and drawbacks as well as advantages in every change of procedure, but I am, I believe, expressing the general opinion of the House when I say that our new rule, that under normal conditions Bills should go to a Standing Committee instead of being discussed in Committee here, has worked advantageously. I do not say that it ought to be applied to Bills such as the Old-Age Pensions Bill, or the Licensing Bill, or to measures of a highly controversial kind. [An HON. MEMBER: The Coal Mines Bill.] I think that is a fair case; when once the principle is adopted it is a mere question of adjustment of detail. Take a case like that of the Children Bill. That Bill has 130 clauses, and there would be no possibility of its passing at all if the Committee Stage had to be taken in this House. The Scottish Education Bill is a very complicated and difficult measure. If we
244
had to discuss it in Committee of the Whole House a large number of Members would take no part in the matter except to come in and vote on questions they do not understand, and we should abstract no insignificant fraction from the general legislative time of the House So long as the system of Grand Committees is not abused for the purpose of removing from the floor of the House measures which in their details as well as principle are highly controversial, I think there is a balance of gain rather than loss. The right hon. Gentleman complains of the use made of the guillotine. I said, and every one on this Bench said some years ago, stronger things than the right hon. Gentleman has said. I do not retract or repent what I have said. I have never regarded the guillotine as anything better than a necessary evil. It is impossible to discriminate by an order of the House between the relative degrees of importance and interest of different amendments, and the guillotine must exclude some important topics. I hope we may to some extent mitigate that by recasting the Report stage and securing on the Report stage that matters not adequately discussed in Committee should first receive attention. The guillotine is an evil, but it is a necessary evil, until you can get some machinery by which, with the general consent of the House, the amount of time to be allocated to the topics to be discussed on the consideration of Bills can be determined impartially instead of depending entirely on the Government majority of the day. I am afraid that is a counsel of perfection. The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties well. I do not say he invented the guillotine, but he perfected its workmanship and widened the sphere of its operations, and we are, after all, but lame and halting followers of the right hon. Gentleman. It does not matter which Party is in power; the guillotine will remain, I venture to predict, a permanent part of the machinery of this House, and its use will become more frequent unless some such arrangement as I have indicated is made. I pass to what the right hon. Gentleman said on the subject of Supply. I assure him that there has been no intention of escaping from the understanding which was come to when this rule was framed,

245
that it is not for the Government, but for the critics of the Government, to determine what particular topics should be taken in Committee of Supply. The regular Opposition have clearly the first claim to be consulted. So long as the Patronage Secretary and I hold our present positions there will be no indisposition to consult the right hon. Gentleman in these matters. But there are other sections of the House to be considered also. There is the Irish Party, who have, by long, unbroken custom, been entitled to a voice as to when Irish Supply should be taken and as to what particular topics should be discussed. My colleagues from Scotland have an equal right in regard to Scottish Supply. On questions of general policy there are Members sitting in another quarter of the House who certainly would complain—and I think with reason—if their wishes were not taken into account. The Government has no interest whatever in themselves choosing topics in Supply, still less in choosing the topics in Supply in which their own friends are interested. My experience is that when you are in Committee of Supply it is the wounds of your friends that are most to be feared, and I am not sure that by this convenient convention, by which the Opposition are masters of the situation in the choice of topics, we do not escape more inconvenient situations than otherwise. As regards the number of days given to Supply, we are giving the minimum of twenty provided by the rule. So long as the requirements of the rule are satisfied, I do not think it is the function of the Opposition to determine the number of days. I think there we must consult the general wishes of the House. My belief is that the preponderance of opinion in the House is that Members will be more profitably occupied in the manner I have indicated than they would be if one, two, or three more days were given to Supply. Unfortunately it must happen with an Administration carrying on business under our rules of procedure that a large number of important topics must remain un-discussed in Supply every session. When this rule was first introduced it was on of our favourite topics on platforms to point out the enormous sums of money
246
which, under the operation of the guillotine, were voted away on the last two nights without a word of criticism. As to the Licensing Bill, the right hon. Gentleman ingenuously suggests that we should start the Committee stage now and; postpone the guillotine Resolution till the autumn session.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no; the other way about.
MR. ASQUITH: Well, he has made both suggestions if I understand him rightly.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is a small matter, but I should prefer two more days for Supply. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to give an earnest of sincerity to the country, I suggest I that he should move the guillotine Motion before the adjournment and take the whole of the Committee stage in the autumn.
MR. ASQUITH: I think he did make the other suggestion, but I do not press that. I merely wish to point out that if we began the first clause without the guillotine I am sure we should not get beyond the first line before the adjournment for the autumn recess. I think that I have endeavoured to answer the main points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not in the least complain of his raising them. It will appear from what has been said that if we are to adjourn, as I take it the House will wish to do, on 1st August, we must adopt this Motion and distribute the time that remains between now and the adjournment in the manner proposed. There is only one other point that I ought to have mentioned in my opening remarks, and which may strike the House as one of importance, and that is that we propose to adopt and star as our own two private Members' Bills, a course which I think the Government ought never to take save where the Bills are in an exceptional position. With regard to these Bills both are in an exceptional position. The first is the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill, which is a very important measure which has been made the subject of an

247
arrangement between the Chief Secretary, the Treasury, and the promoters of the Bill. It has to pass through the Report stage, and will not really take up any substantial part of the time still remaining. The other Bill is one in which the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is interested. I hope the House will not suspect anything in the nature of a corrupt bargain, although the circumstances seem to be suspicious. But in point of fact, even if the hon. Baronet were not, as he is, the father and sponsor of this Bill, I think that the Government would have felt bound to adopt it in view of its exceptional character. It is the Wild Birds Bill, a measure which is absolutely indispensable in the interests of humanity and in order to put an end to a most cruel practice. I am quite certain that it cannot occupy more than a very few minutes.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had no objection to what had fallen from the Prime Minister with regard to the two Bills of which the Government proposed to take charge, but in reference to the allocation of time he would point out that only two days had been allotted to Irish Estimates. Although it was the practice to consult hon. Members below the gangway, he ventured to say that it would be fair to consult also the Irish Unionist representatives, who were not an unimportant section of the House, and who felt that a third day should be given to the Chief Secretary's Vote, which this year apparently was to be included among those to which no time would be allotted.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he wanted to protest as a private Member, not against the number of days given to Supply by the system established under the late Government some years ago, but against the practice which had arisen of using Supply as a means of attacking the Government. He thought that the House had lost a great deal of power and of influence in the country by not looking more carefully after expenditure. He hoped that some day
248
or other they would get a better system than the present one of merely using Supply for attacking the Government and not for regulating the expenditure of the country.
MR. COURTHOPEasked when the right hon. Gentleman was going to give a day or even a few hours to discuss the Report of the Hop Committee, which he understood was already in the hands of Members. He brought this matter up now because there were special reasons for his doing so. The right hon. Gentleman during the debate on the Address had himself admitted the extreme urgency of the question, and therefore he was sure that he was justified in pressing this fact upon his attention, namely, that the autumn session would not commence until after the hop harvest was over. That was the time, the moment the hops were picked, for the hop-grower to decide whether he would grub any part of his plantations. If the Government were going to do anything at all for the industry it was of the utmost importance that the growers should be made aware of it before they made their arrangements for August and September. He did not think that he was making an unreasonable request. A very short time would be required for making a statement on the matter, which he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him was one of importance. He thought that the discussion should take place before the adjournment instead of at the autumn sitting.
*MR. NANNETTIsaid he supported the Resolution with the exception of that part of it which provided for the adjournment of the House without Question put at the close of Government business. He looked upon that part of the Resolution as an infringement of the rights of private Members, because it deprived them of one of their opportunities of bringing before the House and country, questions of urgent public importance or questions affecting the interests of their constituents. Under the Resolution they would have no opportunity of calling attention to

249
any matter of urgency on the adjournment of the House, and if anything important arose they would have no chance of putting a Question to the responsible Minister from the Friday to the Monday. In the meantime grave events might arise which might have the result, in his own constituency for example, of plunging them into very serious difficulties. Take the case of a strike: it was possible that the employers might desire to defeat the efforts of the men by seeking to obtain the assistance of the military. It might be urged that such a thing could not take place. But he knew that such things had taken place, and that they would take place again, and it was necessary to be prepared on all occasions when the interests of their constituents were at stake. But if the Resolution were passed as it stood, they would have no opportunity on the adjournment of the House of raising any question. In the City of Dublin at the present moment there was a big strike going on, and efforts were being made to bring in the military. He appealed to the Prime Minister to take notice of this question, because an attempt was being made to crush the trade unionists. He saw the Secretary for War in his place. The right hon. Gentleman had experience of the military in Belfast, and he would put to the right hon. Gentleman that they did not want to see the military in the streets of Dublin in the same way. [Cries of "Question."] When he was out of order Mr. Speaker would intervene. This was the only opportunity he had of raising this very serious matter which affected the well-being of the citizens of Dublin. He was sorry that the Members of that House were so anxious to allow their privileges to be taken away in matters of this kind. What necessity was there for that part of the Resolution which prevented a Question being put on the Motion for the adjournment? That opportunity was only used on occasions of emergency, or when a private Member felt that he had something to bring forward of importance to his constituents and to the country. If they allowed the Resolution to be passed as it stood the very contingency he was describing might arise in connection with their own con-
250
stituencies. Therefore, he did not see why they should allow the Resolution to pass with these words in it. If the Prime Minister would consent to the deletion of these words he was sure that he would get support in nearly every quarter of the House. There was nothing to be gained by their retention, and in keeping them he held that they were doing that which was wrong. Private Members had very little opportunity of expressing their feelings, and day by day they found that their rights were being taken away from them. They ought, therefore, to be all the more jealous to guard them when occasion offered. In this Resolution they saw another instance of how they were being deprived of them. He knew the number of Bills which the House had to get through that day, and he did not want to put them to the trouble of a division, but he hoped the Prime Minister would take such steps in regard to the strike in Dublin that the Chief Secretary and the Minister for War would not allow the military to interfere in a trade dispute in that city, where the company which carried the mails were discharging the men simply because they belonged to trade unions. That was a matter about which he would have something to say when the Postmaster-General was in his place and opportunity offered. In the interests of his constituents and of private Members he thought that that was an occasion when notice should be taken of the question which he now submitted, and that the words to which he objected as an infringement of the rights of private Members should be deleted.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Opposition had always been reasonable. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him in that. The Government had not put down too much business for completion, with the one exception, of course, of the Licensing Bill. He did not know why that Bill should be taken now, in view of the autumn session. He was supported in his opinion by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in August, 1904, when the House was going to adjourn, and there was no autumn session. The Chancellor

251
objected to the Licensing Bill of that day being taken and used these words:
"The right hon. Gentleman said this Bill must go through. Who were they who said it must? It was not the 'must' that arose out of any real need of the country; it was simply a political 'must.' "
The right hon. Gentleman was a true prophet then, and now that he was in power and was high priest he ought to remember his prophecy of days gone by, and should persuade the Prime Minister to hold over the Licensing Bill until the autumn session. He was glad that the Prime Minister had given the assurance not to press contentious measures after eleven o'clock, because he remembered an instance in which the right hon. Gentleman had said that legislation at a late hour of the night or an early hour in the morning was neither good for the laws that were made nor for the people who made them. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having been kinder to the House than he had anticipated.
MR. BOWLESsaid he wished to put before the House one consideration which had not been mentioned, but which appeared to have some importance. From that moment until the end of September Government business had precedence over all other business whatever. There remained of course certain rights to private Members notwithstanding the suspension of the orders, and the object of this Motion was to take away a good many, and some of the most important of these rights—for instance, the power of raising questions on the Motion for the adjournment and of bringing in Bills under Standing Order 11 and others. He agreed with all that had been said on that side that there might be good ground for a Motion of this kind, but as he understood the matter, such a Motion could only be justified upon the ground that it was necessary to take away private Member's rights in order to wind up the business of the session. But they had been told that this was not a Motion to enable the Government to wind up the business of the session. The House was merely adjourning on 1st August and meeting again in the autumn, and it appeared to him to be impossible for private Members to decide whether it
252
was reasonable of the Government to ask them to give up their rights for the remaining three weeks unless the Government told them whether or not they intended also to take away all their rights during the autumn session as well. If they proposed to do that it was a very strong thing to ask them to submit from that moment right through until Christmas to the deprivation of their rights. If the right hon. Gentleman could assure them that he had not at any rate closed his mind to the possibility of some right being left to private Members throughout the autumn session it would increase the friendly reception the Motion had met with.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYasked whether the list of Bills which the Government had starred was a final list or whether it was proposed to star any more measures later on. If not, he would like to ask the Government whether a system could not be devised whereby the waste of time caused by private controversial Bills going through the Standing Committees could be obviated, because it was rather absurd, when it was perfectly well known that a private Bill had no chance unless the Government took it up, that the time of Members should be wasted in attending Standing Committees, especially when at this period of the session they had to sit so late and had very important business to do. If something could be devised to obviate that waste of time it would be a great advantage to the House.
MR. SEAVERNSsaid that while he had no fault whatever to find with the general conduct of the business of the House by the Government of which he was a loyal supporter, he would like to utter one word of criticism regarding the method in which the Port of London Bill had been handled. It was brought into the House under the ten minutes rule, having, no doubt, received very careful consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It dealt with enormously important interests connected with the Port of London, and involved the purchase by public money of the docks of this great port. It constituted a new authority, the position of which required very careful

253
consideration, and, what to his mind was far more important than all this, it proposed to impose dues upon all goods imported into or exported from the port. In other words it established what amounted to an import duty plus an export duty on the trade of the Port of London. That Bill received exactly four hours discussion, and was then closured by the Government and referred to a Joint Committee. As one who was very deeply interested in the trade of the Port of London, and had had many years connection with it, it seemed to him that that discussion was so inadequate as almost to amount to no discussion at all. The Bill, he believed, would have the most careful and complete consideration by the Joint Committee, but he suggested that what would happen would be that when it came back on the Report stage those who desired to discuss it or to criticise the decisions of the Committee would be met with the argument that they were not as competent to deal with the matter as the special Committee which had heard all the evidence upon it, and eventually the result would be that the Bill which was of enormous importance to the Port of London and the adjacent territory would have been passed with practically no discussion at all.
MR. LANE-FOXasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the very great amount of detail involved in the discussion of the Housing Bill and whether the Government seriously meant to proceed with it in the autumn session; if not, whether it was necessary to put the Committee to the great labour of going through with a Bill which involved tremendous discussion. Further he asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could not consider the possibility of making some arrangement by which the law officers should be available to give legal decisions on the Grand Committees. There had been several cases of Bills of a controversial character on which legal opinion had been wanting. It was obvious that a man could not be in two places at once, and a law officer could not always be available to any Committee. On the Access to Mountains
254
Bill the other day they were left in a dilemma owing to the absence of any official definition of what a certain term would mean, and eventually the Committee, not altogether unwillingly, had to adjourn for luncheon till a law officer could be hunted up. When he came he was a Scottish law officer and under the Bill large questions of English law were involved, and he confessed his inability to give any opinion on the English law. He did not know what the Prime Minister's solution of the difficulty would be, but there was a very great disadvantage in having conflicting opinions by Gentlemen on opposite sides when there was no one to give a legal opinion on behalf of the Government.
MR. LEIF JONESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could hold out any hope of the carrying of a small Bill which for two years he had been trying to get through the House, and which met with no real opposition—the Public Health Amendment Act, 1875 (Water Rights) Bill. The measure was in very great demand in country districts and the only opposition to it came from the Canal Association, who were afraid that their water supply might suffer. The promoters of the Bill had accepted the Amendments proposed by the Canal Companies. The Bill would have been through already, but for the fact that it had been blocked by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, on retaliatory principles. The Government now had means of squaring the hon. Baronet. The villages which were waterless were at least as much in need of the good offices of the Government as the birds. The President of the Local Government Board at the beginning of the session gave notice that he was going to introduce a Bill dealing with the point. The local council with which he was connected were looking hopefully forward to it, and as this small instalment would help the villages and would bring them water twelve months sooner he hoped the Government would take it up.
SIR FRANCIS CHANNINGsaid it was obvious that Bills which were now before or had passed through the Standing Committees, with

255
the exception of the two which had been starred, could not pass during the present period of the session, but many of them were useful and non - controversial Bills, and he wished to put in a plea for giving them a chance to pass in the autumn so that the labours of the Committees need not be wholly thrown away. If their labours were to be thrown away he supported the view that they had better not waste their energies any further.
MR. MACLEANasked the Prime Minister whether the Children Bill was to be taken before the House rose on 1st August or at the beginning of the autumn sittings.
LORD R. CECILdesired to support what had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for East Northants and by his hon. friend the Member for Barkston Ash. He hoped the Government would carefully consider the Housing Bill before they asked a Committee to sit for days and days in regard to it. The principles of the Bill, he believed, found general acceptance in the House, but the details were exceedingly complicated and the drafting had not diminished the inherent difficulties of the question. He hoped the Government would arrange with one or more of their many legal supporters to be present on Standing Committees when the law officers could not be present and give assistance in that way to the Committee.
MR. ASQUITHsaid, with regard to the Report of the Hop Industry Committee, that he gathered that it was a very elaborate and complicated document, and he was sure it would require a good deal of consideration before they could make any recommendation to the House. He could not hold out any hope of the Report being discussed before the adjournment. In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Norwood, this Motion did not relate to the autumn session at all. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better wait until the storm burst. With regard to the starring of private Bills, the Government had had such a painful experience in the past of the results of, he would not say improvidently starring such Bills, but of
256
starring them without a very careful consideration both as to their subject-matter and as to the extent of the hostility they were likely to incur, that he thought both sides of the House would agree that the Government ought not to star a private Bill unless they were satisfied that there was practically a universal desire that it should be passed. Reference had been made to the possible waste of time by the discussion being continued in Grand Committee of private Member's Bills which there was no prospect, or, at any rate, no probability, of getting beyond that stage. He agreed that it would be most undesirable, indeed it would be farcical, for a Standing Committee to be wasting its time in the consideration of such a Bill, and, if there was such a possibility, he would take such steps as were in his power to prevent it. As regarded the Housing Bill, it was the hope and intention of the Government to get that Bill in the course of the autumn session. It was pre-eminently one of those Bills which a Standing Committee was thoroughly qualified to deal with, and he could not help hoping that sufficient progress would be made with it as to enable them to pass it into law. It was a new claim that on every Standing Committee there should be a law officer in constant attendance, but, being a lawyer himself, he was very much in sympathy with what he was glad to find was the general impression of the House, that legislation could not be conducted usefully in the absence of the lawyers. They had fortunately an ample reservoir of non-official legal talent, and he hoped they might be able to secure the valuable voluntary service of some of these Members in the future. At any rate, the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone would be considered. The Government proposed to take the Report Stage of the Children Bill at the beginning of the autumn sittings.
MR. HICKS BEACHasked the Prime Minister to give favourable consideration to the Married Women's Property Bill, which now stood for Third Reading. It had passed through Committee without amendment, there was, he believed, no

257
opposition to it, and it was desired by the Local Government Board.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that if the hon. Member could bring him satisfactory assurances that the Bill was universally
desired the Government would raise no objections.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 69. (Division List No. 183.)

AYES.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Armitage, R.

Gulland, John W.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Halpin, J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Barker, John

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L.(Rossendale

Nicholson, Charles, N.(Doncast'r

Barnard, E. B.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nolan, Joseph

Barnes, G. N.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Norman, Sir Henry

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Beale, W. P.

Hart-Davies, T.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Bell, Richard

Harwood, George

Nuttall, Harry

Bellairs, Carlyon

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hazleton, Richard

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Boland, John

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Dowd, John

Bowerman, C. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Grady, J.

Branch, James

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Brigg, John

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Kelly,James (Roscommon, N.

Brodie, H. C.

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Brooke, Stopford

Higham, John Sharp

Parker, James (Halifax)

Bryee, J. Annan

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Burns. Rt. Hon. John

Hodge, John

Pirie, Duncan V.

Byles, William Pollard

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cameron, Robert

Hudson, Walter

Power, Patrick Joseph

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

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

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jenkins, J.

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

Cheetham, John Frederick

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jowett, F. W.

Reddy, M.

Clancy, John Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cleland, J. W.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Clough, William

Kekewich, Sir George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Clynes, J. R.

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

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

Laidlaw, Robert

Robinson, S.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Lambert, George

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lamont, Norman

Roche, John (Galway, East)

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

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Rowlands, J.

Crean, Eugene

Lehmann, R. C.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Crosfield, A. H.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Russell, T. W.

Cullinan, J.

Lundon, W.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Curran, Peter Francis

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Dalziel, James Henry

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs)

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

Devlin, Joseph

Maclean, Donald

Shackleton, David James

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Sheehy, David

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

M'Callum, John M.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Crae, Sir George

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Mallet, Charles E

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Marnham, F J.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Everett, R. Lacey

Massie, J.

Soares, Ernest J.

Ferens, T. R.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Meagher, Michael

Steadman, W. C.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim, N.)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Menzies, Walter

Strachey, Sir Edward

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Middlebrook, William

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Glendinning, R. G.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Summerbell, T.

Glover, Thomas

Mooney, J. J.

Sutherland, J. E.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Watt, Henry A.

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Weir, James Galloway

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Wardle, George J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E.(Clackmannan

Wilkie, Alexander

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Faber, George Denison(York)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H.

Faber, Capt. W.V. (Hants, W.)

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

Gardner, Ernest

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Baring, Capt. Hn. G(Winchester)

Gordon, J.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Gretton, John

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Guinness, Walter Edward

Renton, Leslie

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Helmsley, Viscount

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Bull, Sir William James

Hope, James Fitzalan(Sheffield)

Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stanier, Beville

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Talbot Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kerry, Earl of

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

Clark, George Smith

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Dalrymple, Viscount

Magnus, Sir Philip

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

FATAL ACCIDENTS (DAMAGES) BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY,)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY, Devonport), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that before the Act of 1846 there existed a legal rule or doctrine which declared that a man's right of action for injuries perished with him. About this date the law altered by the passing of the Fatal Accidents Act, known generally among lawyers as Lord Campbell's Act. This gave a right of action, but afterwards a question arose as to its construction in an action where the defendants admitted negligence, but, the person killed being insured, they contended in the course of the trial that the amount recoverable out of the policy ought to be deducted from the amount allocated by the jury. The Judge so directed the jury, and this had been the law up to this time. The Government were now seeking to amend the law by this Bill. In the case of
260
non-fatal accidents the law was different. An attempt had been made to get the Courts to apply the same doctrine to the two cases, but when an important case was before the Courts in 1874 it was decided that the money which a policy-holder was entitled to receive ought not to be taken into account in diminution of damages for a non-fatal accident. The Court held that it would be preposterous to take into account the amount recoverable under a policy in mitigation of damages. Thus, where a fatal accident occurred, and the person killed held a policy, the amount derivable from it was taken into account when the jury assessed the damages, but in the case of a non-fatal accident the jury had no power to take this action, and the holder of the policy got the full benefit of it. But the anomaly did not end here. In 1849 or in 1864—he believed it was the earlier date—the Railway Passengers Assurance Company came to Parliament, and by means of a private Bill obtained special exemption from the operation of the Act of 1846. Parliament gave special exemption to this

261
company, and the general effect of what they expressly provided was that in the case of a fatal accident arising in connection with any policy of insurance effected by the company the damages recoverable by the representatives of the deceased person should not be liable to any deduction on account of any money received under the policy. That seemed to be rather a curious thing for Parliament to do. He believed however, that it was not the Railway Passengers Assurance Company that came and asked for this provision; it was Parliament itself in a fit of pious resolution which imposed the provision on this particular company when it asked for the granting of powers under a private Bill. Last year two other insurance companies—the Ocean and the General Accident—came to Parliament and succeeded in getting this special exemption. At this moment there were forty insurance companies clamouring at the doors of the House for private Bills asking to have the same special exemption as was enjoyed by three of their competitors. The Government, in these circumstances, thought that the general law should be amended so as to put all the insurance companies in a position of equality. They also thought that the representatives of the policy-holder should receive the entire benefit of the sum recoverable under the policy.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir H. Kearley.)
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he could not support the Bill. He understood that the law up to the present time had been that if a man was killed in an accident his relatives could go to a jury and claim compensation from the people who had caused his death. If the jury awarded £400, that amount was paid to the relatives as representing the loss which had accrued to them. Under what was known as Lord Campbell's Act it was held that the relatives ought not to make a profit out of a man's death. It appeared that the Railway Passengers Assurance Company so long ago as 1864 or 1849 were exempted from the law in regard to participation which applied to
262
other companies, and the two companies which the hon. Gentleman had mentioned came to Parliament last year and got a private Bill which gave them the same privilege as the Railway Passengers Assurance Company. Thereupon other companies came demanding equal rights, and, therefore, what the House was asked to-day to assent to was not a public demand, but to give particular insurance companies certain privileges in order to enable them to compete with their competitors. He did not see why the House should interfere with the ordinary law in order to grant advantages to certain companies. The proper course to take would be to cancel the powers given to the Railway Passengers Assurance, the Ocean, and the General Accident Companies. The majority of these accidents took place on the railway, but in ninety-nine cases out of 100 they were due to no fault of the railway company, and the railway companies did not wish to evade their responsibility. When railway companies accepted full responsibility for an accident, they ought to be treated justly, and the relatives of a passenger killed ought not to be allowed to make a profit out of his death. When a railway company were ready to pay to the relatives whatever loss had accrued, and if the relatives happened to have a sum of money coming to them from an insurance company, he saw no reason why that should not be taken into account in settling the amount which the railway companies paid. While the relatives should not be placed in a worse position, he failed to see why they should be allowed to make a profit out of the accident merely because certain insurance companies had succeeded in getting a private Bill smuggled through Parliament.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid he did not agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London in the remarks he had made about the Bill. The hon. Baronet rather put the cart before the horse, because the necessity for the Bill followed not upon two insurance companies getting a special clause last year, but upon the fact that there was a clause in the Railway Passengers Assurance Company's Act, and that a good many other insurance

263
companies who were asking for a similar clause withdrew their applications on the promise of the Government that they would bring in a general Act dealing with this unjustifiable difference between the Railway Passengers Assurance Company and certain other insurance companies. Last year, a large insurance company asked him to look after their interests. They had a clause to this effect in the Bill they were promoting, but it was pointed out that it was not right to give them a preference while other insurance companies were left out, and they withdrew the clause. He did not know how it was that the Ocean Company and another got the clause which the Royal Insurance Company and others withdrew on the understanding that there was to be a general Act dealing with the question. He thought it perfectly clear that the railway company, in case of a fatal accident, ought not to benefit by the providence of an individual in insuring himself against the various accidents to which all were liable. The accident insurance business had grown since the passing of the Compensation Act, and it had become necessary for numerous trading interests in the country to go in for insurance. None of them would consider such a proposition as that when £1,000 was awarded for an accident on a railway a certain amount should be deducted from the damages because the person was insured. He was pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade had taken up the matter with a view of doing equal justice to all parties, and on behalf of the large insurance companies he thanked the hon. Gentleman very much for the action he had taken.
Mr. GORDONsaid that in awarding damages in cases where non-fatal injuries had been sustained the Courts had proceeded on an entirely different principle from that which was applied in cases of fatal accident. In a case of death it had always been held by the Courts that compensation for the actual loss sustained was what should be awarded. Take, for example, the case of a child who met with a fatal accident. The child had been earning nothing and contributing nothing to the
264
upkeep of the family with which it was connected. This was a Bill to benefit insurance companies, and he thought the House should not pass it. There were a great many cases of accidents which occurred otherwhere than on a railway, and every lawyer knew that although the person who caused the accident was legally if not morally to blame, the injured person wanted to get as large a sum as possible.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that they ought to be told whether or not the particular rights which certain insurance companies had got now should be taken away from them or whether these rights should be given to all insurance companies. He ventured to say that no real case has been made on behalf of the Bill, although he supposed it would be impossible to divide against it on a Friday afternoon. The hon. Gentleman had said that a man should get the benefits of his providence; but he would point out that the benefits of a man's providence were not to be reaped unless it took the form of insurance in some particular insurance company. If his providence took the form of buying a house or investing in Government securities, the man was not to have the benefit of it at all, according to the Bill. The Bill was simply a measure to give a privilege to a particular form of saving, viz., investing in insurance companies.
*THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,)said that the present state of the law was perfectly anomalous whatever might have been the intention of the framers of Lord Campbell's Act. It was quite true that some insurance companies under the existing law were in a better position than others in the market for insurance policies. As to this point, it would not be expedient to repeal their private Acts, and therefore the better, and indeed the only course open to them, was to redress the inequality thus existing by putting the other insurance companies on the same footing as the favoured ones. But the main ground upon which the Government recommended this measure was the public one they thought it was unfair to make from the compensation which ought to be given to the representatives
of a person injured

265
through the negligence of another where the man died from the injuries, a deduction which would not be made if the man was only injured and survived. That was the old rule of law under which a man's right of action for injuries died with his death. The whole basis of compensation was negligence. If a person was very seriously injured by being knocked down by a motor omnibus he could get the damages in full without deduction: but if he happened to die and was insured, his representatives could only obtain the balance of the compensation, although negligence had been proved, after deducting the insurance money which accrued through his own providence. It was not mainly from the point of view of the insurance companies that the Government asked for the Second Reading of this Bill, although he thought it was right to redress the inequalities existing owing to the Acts of Parliament obtained by three special companies; but upon the general grounds that persons guilty of negligence ought not to have the right to deduct from the compensation the sum received under the insurance policy by the representatives of a person whose death was caused by the injuries which resulted from the negligence.
SIR H. KEARLEY SIR H. KEARLEY moved that the Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [LORDS].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 10, after the word 'Act,' to add the words 'or in any case where the Judge decides that a patent should be revoked.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
*THE CHAIRMANruled that if the Amendment went beyond Section 92 of the 1907 Act it was out of order.
MR. CARLILEdrew attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.
MR. SHACKLETON: Oh, let us get on with the work.
House counted; and forty persons being found present—
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said that the Amendment was of a far reaching character and went beyond the scope of the Bill.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported without Amendment.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
CAPTAIN CRAIGhoped that the Government would give some explanation, first of all, as to why it was necessary to add so soon to the Patents and Designs Bill; and secondly, as to the certain clause in the old Bill which required amendment.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that the Question of the hon. Member was a very reasonable one. The Bill was introduced merely to make good a draftsman's mistake in the Act passed last year consolidating; the Patents Acts—a mistake so easy to make that it was very hard to attach any great degree of culpability to anybody. The result of that mistake was to deprive litigants of a right of appeal in cases where the patentee was alleged not to be the first inventor, where the inventions was alleged not to be new, where there was allged to be no subject matter for a patent, and in a whole group of important cases of that character as to which the Government never intended to restrict the right of appeal. All that this Bill now did was to explain

267
that the Consolidation Act of 1907, Section 92, was not to have that undesirable effect.

BEE PEST (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
*THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOE IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said that the object of this Bill, the Second Reading of which he now moved, was to meet the ravages of a disease which had broken out in Ireland and had almost put an end to the industry of bee-keeping in that country to which attention had been given by a large number of small cottars and farmers. In County Down alone there were 1,500 bee-keepers. The disease was very infectious, and was spreading everywhere. County councils, district councils, and the Council of Agriculture had all united in asking for legislation to deal with it. The only way of dealing with it was to destroy the hives of diseased bees, and the Bill provided for the notification of disease, for the right of the Agricultural Department to declare that an area was infected, for the destruction of the bees, and for compensation to be given to the bee keepers. The compensation would not be provided out of public funds in the ordinary sense, but out of the rates and the funds supplied by the Department for agricultural education. The compensation was limited to one-half of the value of the bees. Inasmuch as the whole public bodies in Ireland were agreed as to the necessity of the Bill, he hoped the House would give it a Second Reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
MR. R. DUNCANsaid that the Scottish Members strongly desired to help Ireland in this matter, and hoped that the Bill would be passed.
MR. CARLILEsaid that under Clause 5, sub-
268
section (3) the local authorities were apparently to have the power of the destruction of property, and to decide whether they were to pay or not. That was to say, they were to be judges in their own cause. That was a curious position. Then, in the next subsection there was another extraordinary provision. He did not remember any similar case where, property being taken and destroyed, compensation to half the value of the property destroyed was to be paid only if the authority had the money to do it with. If they had not the money they need not pay. That was a most extraordinary proceeding. He maintained that the clause was very incompletely drawn, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to have it altered. Further, he asked if there was any reason why the Bill should not be extended to England, Scotland, and Wales. Were there no diseased bees in these countries? If there were, why should they not have the benefit of this legislation?
CAPTAIN CRAIGasked whether the hon. Gentleman would give the House an undertaking that when the Bill went into Committee upstairs, the Government would pay some attention to the subject of compensation. The hon. Gentleman was aware that in destroying cattle on account of tuberculosis or pigs on account of swine fever, compensation was paid to the amount of half the price of the animal, but in this case, because the men were humble beekeepers, whose livelihood depended upon the industry, the compensation was to be left open. Clause 5 ought certainly to be amended and the hon. Gentleman should consider the hard cases which must necessarily arise in the case of the poor man who tried to make his living out of bee-keeping and whose skeps were destroyed, perhaps, through the spite of a neighbour who gave inaccurate information. As a bee-keeper himself he took very great interest in this subject. In County Down a great deal of money was made out of bee-keeping, and while he quite approved of the Bill he could not understand why the hon. Gentleman, when introducing measures of this kind, should leave such wide powers in the hands of the authorities.

269
Not only could they seize infected skeps, but they were to have the power of saying whether the compensation should be a few shillings or nothing at all. He submitted there was something wrong in the drafting of the Bill; that the Government had not considered what was the real meaning of Clause 5 which was really the bulk of the Bill. They were aware that the hon. Gentleman with his multifarious duties might not have had time to consider the full effect of this clause, and he suggested that after the legal advisers had considered it, some alterations might be made in it in Committee on the lines he had indicated.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYasked whether the hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking that in Committee he would consider some Amendments to this particular clause.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he would ask that the Bill should be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

WHALE FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that this Bill was largely founded on the Act passed for Scotland last session. There was no law enabling the fisheries authority in Ireland either to licence or to prohibit the erection of whaling stations. Last year there was an intention to erect such a station on the Donegal coast, and this caused great alarm among the fishing population, leading almost to violent measures. The Department sent down expert advisers who held an inquiry, and upon evidence and report, a bye-law was issued prohibiting the erection subject to approval by the Privy Council. The evidence seemed to show that the fishing population were wrong in thinking that the setting up of the station would destroy the herring fishery, but in view of the strong feeling amongst the people he asked for this licensing and prohibiting
270
power. It would be unwise to set up a station where the fishing industry was strong, but there were plenty of places on the coast where, without objection, a station might be erected with benefit to those promoting it and advantage to labour in the vicinity. The Bill gave the Department discretion in the matter.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
LORD BALCARRESremarked on the difference in tone between the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary for Scotland in promoting the Scottish Bill. He hoped when the Bill went into Committee the penalties might to some extent be revised. As the Bill stood at the present moment a man could be fined £100 for any breach of the obligations of the Act. Under the Act it would be a breach of the obligations in publishing the statutory advertisements to advertise with only four days interval instead of six as laid down in the Bill, and £100 fine for that would be simply absurd. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not include all offences under these penalties in Clause 6, except the major offence for which a penalty of £500 could be imposed. There should be classification. A few days ago on the subject of trawling the Secretary for Foreign Affairs justified holding his hand by saying that we could not admit the right of any State to legislate in matters affecting our territorial waters and would take offence at legislation on matters outside their territorial waters. But under Clause 3 of the present Bill the power was taken to punish any person employed by a British subject who did certain things within twenty miles of the Irish coast. He did not refer to that in connection with whale fishing, but merely because it seemed to break in upon the declaration of the Foreign Secretary. He did not object to it on any technical ground connected with whale fishing but because it involved the question of foreign relations. He did not think it would constitute a grievance to any foreign Powers, but it might afford, precedent for a foreign Power to take

271
action, possibly of a serious character. He rejoiced at the tone of the hon. Member, and recognised from his remarks that he and his technical advisers were far more closely acquainted with the natural history of these mammals than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland. There was no question about it. The Bill passed last year for Scotland was based upon the entirely erroneous theory that this one great occupant of the sea could injure the livelihood of the more humble denizens of the waters. The best authorities now thought that, so far from the whale being naturally hostile to the mackerel, the contrary was the case, and that mackerel were more inclined to follow in the tracks of whales than to avoid them. The foundation for the Scottish Bill of last year had absolutely broken down, because since its passing the whole fishing industry of Scotland, both line and net fishing, so far from being destroyed, had enjoyed a record year. While he voted against the Bill of last year he did not intend to oppose this Bill, because the speech of the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture of Ireland showed that he was fully familiar with the complicated problems involved in this question.
MR. HUGH LAWsaid he would not offer any opposition to this Bill, although it was quite true that the Scottish Act on which this was based had not given the satisfaction that was expected of it. He would not attempt to dispute either with the right hon. Gentleman or the noble Lord as to the natural history of these denizens of the sea, but he doubted whether anybody had any exact knowledge of the benefit or otherwise of the presence of the whale. All that was certain was that we could not interfere with the economy of nature without producing disastrous results. That was one reason why he welcomed this Bill. If whaling were to be allowed without regulations it might happen that the destruction of the whale would lead to the disappearance and the extinction of the herring. The whale might even be said to be of assistance to the herring fishery because in his pursuit of the herring he was liable to
272
drive them into shallow water where they might be captured.
*MR. CARLILEthought there was one part of the Bill which required some elucidation. He wished to know, whether the Vice-President was in favour of this industry or whether he wished to restrict it or extinguish it, and why the licences had been arranged as they had been. An owner could employ three steamers on payment of £200 for a licence; for two steamers a licence costing £150 was required. But if he could only employ one steamer, instead of paying £66 13s. 4d., which was the charge for one steamer where three were employed, he had to pay £100. He asked this Question because the poor owner was apparently penalised in engaging in a growing industry which might be found to be generally advantageous to the country.
CAPTAIN CRAIGwished to know, before the Bill was read a second time, whether the Government could state if any effort had been made to establish whale stations in Ireland in recent years, and whether the Bill was necessary merely to prohibit the industry being carried on except under the stringent regulations laid down. The House, he thought, ought to be in possession of that fact, and to be told how many instances had come to the knowledge of anybody of foreigners wishing to start. He wished to know what would be the effect of the overlapping of this Bill and the Scottish Whale Fisheries Act. It might be found that in the North of Ireland the twenty-mile limit of this Bill would overlap by half a mile or so the forty-mile limit of the Scottish Act, and he wished to know whether there would be a separate Board or a joint Board to carry out the provisions of the Bill and to see that no illegality took place under it. What power would they have at their back to see that these stringent regulations were carried out? Another question which should be inquired into was the expense. He hoped a great deal of expense would not attach to the Bill, because it was not likely to do so much good as most Bills had done for

273
Ireland. It was certainly possible protect the industry, and those who prosecuted the herring fishing in Ireland were certainly desirous of having the fisheries further protected. Und the Bill a certain amount of the expense would fall upon these people Hon. and right hon. Gentleman knew scouted the idea, but certain parts of Ireland would derive no benefit whatever from the Bill, and therefore it appeared to him that the burden of the cost would fall rather unequally upon the different parts of Ireland. He hope the hon. Gentleman would look into this and thought it would save time if the hon. Gentleman could offer a few introductory remarks so that the Bill might b further explained. Personally he did no oppose the Bill, but he would like to see some points cleared up.
MR. JOYCEsaid that a present the Department of Agriculture had no proper means of patrolling over 2,000 miles of coast round Ireland and he asked what explanation the Vice-President of the Department would be able to give as to the propel patrolling that was to be done if the Bill became law. It was a point of great interest.
MR. BAERIEentirely agreed with the point made by the last speaker. This was not the first time the need for a reinforcement of the patrolling provision had been brought to the notice of the Vice-President.
MR. R. DUNCANsaid that that afternoon there was Irish business in hand, and he found an Orangeman, or an ex-Orangeman, on the front bench opposite, from whom he once heard a very hot Orange speech in Glasgow. Everyone was agreed that the Bill would do something to promote industry in Ireland, and if they saw the Orangeman of one mind with the others, he thought they should be backed up. In this Bill they had some attempt at the guiding of a national industry by science and a recognition of how one nation could not stand upon its own people but must always have regard to its neighbours. Ireland must not forget Scotland or England. If Scotland had
274
forgotten England it would not have occupied the position it now held. The must remember they were all part of the great comity of nations, and, he hoped of the great comity of man.
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the hon. and gallant Member for East Down had asked if there was any necessity for the Bill, and if there had been an; applications for it. There had been an application from Donegal, and very a great alarm had been created all along that coast. If there had been nothing else than that he would have asked the House to pass this Bill, but there was another station which had applied for it Inniskea on the West Coast. He though the whole pith of the Bill was that the Department should have discretion either to grant or to refuse licences for this industry. The point was raised by the hon. and gallant Member as to the enforcement of this law, and he agreed that that was a difficulty. He had over and over again stated that the resources of the Department of Agriculture consisted of a single cruiser to police the whole coast of Ireland, but that was a reason for getting additional money to deal with the matter, not for rejecting this Bill. The new cruiser would not be able to do all the work necessary, and he would do what he could with the Treasury. The fact that the Bill would add to the work of the small fleet they had was no reason why the Bill should not be passed. He had been asked whether he intended by the Bill to develop or restrict this industry. He proposed simply to issue licences for conducting the industry where it could be conducted without danger the ordinary fishing. Experts were quite clear that this industry was not inimical to the ordinary fishing industry, but in dealing with the population along the coast he thought it was a reasonable thing to trust the Department and to enable them to exercise their discretion in the matter. As regards the question of overlapping, he thought that might be dealt with in Committee, and he would in the meantime consult with the expert advisers of the Department, and if any change was necessary on that ground it could be made in Committee. As to the licences, they proposed to

275
charge high licences for a large fleet and small licences for a small fleet.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked if he might make a suggestion arising out of practical experience of the Scottish Bill? He thought they should consider whether it would not be as well to make the offence of landing a whale within the prohibited period an offence under the Bill, and that might do away to a considerable extent with the difficulty of enforcement.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order read, for Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee).
MR. BARRIEsaid he proposed to move that the Bill be recommitted. Yesterday they had presented to them a new edition of the Treasury clauses of the Bill, and he thought that that was ample reason why the Bill, with the principle of which he was in entire accord, should be recommitted. In their first sitting in Committee there was no representative of the Treasury present, although the financial clauses of the Bill were by far the most important. They were asked by the Chairman to defer their consideration of the financial clauses, and in spite of protests they dealt with the other clauses. At their subsequent meeting, they had a Treasury representative present, and they then had entirely new financial clauses presented to them, which were dealt with with very little explanation. The Bill went through in that shape, and now they found on the Paper the entirely new clauses submitted by the Treasury. That was quite without precedent, for this was the third edition of the clauses. While in the original Bill the clauses provided for the reception in aid of this most pressing work in Ireland of some-
276
thing like £50,000 per annum, the Treasury now proposed a sum of something like £4,500 per annum, notwithstanding the fact that the local authorities who were dealing with the problem even to a limited extent were annually losing £16,000. He confessed, as one who wished to see rehousing proceeded with rapidly in Ireland, that with the miserably inadequate financial proposals of the Treasury the Bill if passed would only have the effect of preventing a really proper and adequate measure being placed on the Statute - book for a great many years to come. He treated this matter as entirely outside politics. He earnestly desired to see an adequate Bill passed by the House, but it was absolutely impossible for this Bill to be anything but a dead letter if it became law.
CAPTAIN CRAIGseconded. It seemed to him, as an ordinary private Member, that the Bill was full of complicated clauses. Only yesterday a new sheet of Amendments by the Attorney-General and the Treasury was put into their hands, and no one had had time to understand their meaning. The new clause to be moved appeared to treat with the funds of other people in a light and airy manner. It seemed to go into the funds of the Lord Chancellor in the Supreme Court of Ireland, of the Accountant General, and of the Local Government Board. Surely that was a matter for the Committee and not for the whole House to discuss. He thought something should be done for the better housing of the working classes in Ireland, but that was all the more reason why they should take care, in promoting legislation with that object, that they had these details thoroughly thrashed out in Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be recommitted lo the former Committee."—(Mr. Hugh Barrie.)
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he took it for granted that the Government would not listen to the proposal, and he was sure the House would not consider it for a single moment. The intentions of the mover and seconder of the Amendment seemed to be different. If

277
he properly understood the hon. Gentleman who moved it, he was hostile to the Bill. The seconder of the Amendment, however, only seconded it because apparently he was of opinion that, if carried, the motion would not jeopardise the Bill. Every hon. Member knew very well, however, that if the Amendment was carried it would jeopardise the Bill; it would mean the destruction of the Bill. There was only one point he would like to press upon the notice of hon. Members. The argument in favour of the Amendment was that there appeared on the Paper entirely new proposals by the Government of a complicated nature, but that was an entire misrepresentation of the fact. The Bill when it was introduced contained financial proposals under three heads. Two of these sets of financial proposals were objected to by the Treasury, and they were given up by the promoters of the Bill. They were given up reluctantly, but in order to get the Bill through. The third financial proposal which was in the Bill was fully discussed during the whole of one Friday, and it ended in the Second Reading being passed without a single dissentient voice. That remaining financial proposal was the proposal now in the Bill. It was discussed in the Committee, it was agreed to by the Treasury, and a clause was put into the Bill in Committee to carry that agreement out. Since then the Treasury had round that there were technical difficulties in the wording of the clause, and they proposed to give them now words. There was nothing in the new clause that was really new; it was simply to give effect to the proposal discussed in. the Committee and on the Second Reading, and therefore there was no earthly reason for recommitting the Bill. The Bill would effect a valuable consolidation of the law in Ireland and a valuable cheapening of procedure, and would establish for the first time a housing fund for aiding local authorities in carrying out housing schemes.
THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)said they regarded the Bill as most valuable and were most anxious that it should be passed into law. They were not at all agreed with the view of the hon. Gentleman that the passing
278
of this Bill would in any way bar subsequent legislation. The housing of the working classes in Ireland was a matter which certainly deserved more consideration than almost any other subject. If the Bill was recommitted, it would certainly imperil its passage. There were so many other Bills and such a lot of work upstairs that to recommit it would certainly imperil its passage. The objects of the new clause and the new Amendments were not controversial at all. Most of them were merely drafting Amendments, and a good many of them were matters which all parties would agree were for the improvement of the Bill. They were all agreed on the objects they had at heart, and the only difference they might have was as to slight details of the machinery for carrying out those objects, which were to devote the funds which the Treasury had placed at their disposal for the necessary purpose of improving the housing of the working classes in Ireland.
MR. BARRIEintimated that he would withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, considered.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HOBHOUSE,)in moving a new clause (Application of dormant portion of Irish Suitors' Fund to purposes of Housing Acts) said that the hon. Member for Waterford had dealt accurately and very fully with the reasons which had compelled him to place these fresh words on the Paper. In the discussion upstairs upon the financial proposals, it was found, after discussion, that the guarantee of the Consolidated Fund which stood behind the sum of £100,000 had not extended to the sum of £80,000 cash which was to be part and parcel of the sums transferred from the Dormant Suitors' Fund for the purposes of this Bill, and accordingly the Lord Chancellor told them that he was unable to part with that money until the guarantee on which he gave his consent had been put in proper form. When that matter became plain, it was necessary not only to clear up that particular point,

279
but also to consolidate Clauses 4 and 5 into the present clause in order to get rid of any ambiguity of language and to simplify the provisions of the Bill. He, therefore, moved the words standing in his name. It might, perhaps, be convenient to point out that by these new words, the Local Government Board was substituted for the Commissioners of Public Works as the authority which would dispose of the funds. Under the Bill as introduced by the hon. Gentleman opposite, the fund could be more conveniently dealt with by the Commissioners of Public Works, but, as the matter now stood, the more convenient authority would be the Local Government Board in Ireland, who would be the sole executive authority to deal with the whole of the Bill. He therefore proposed to make the change in the manner indicated in the clause.
New clause—
"(1) The Bank of Ireland shall, out of the fund of suitors in the Supreme Court, upon the order of the Lord Chancellor, pay to the Local Government Board, for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, the sum of eighty thousand pounds. (2) The Accountant-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland shall, on the order of the Lord Chancellor, out of the new Two and a half Per Centum Consolidated Stock forming portion of the fund of suitors in the Supreme Court and standing to the credit' of the general ledger account kept, by him for dormant balances, and the unclaimed order and residue account, Land Judge's Court, transfer to the Local Government Board, for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, stock to the nominal value of one hundred thousand pounds. (3) The Local Government Board shall, on such transfer as aforesaid being made, forthwith sell such stock so transferred and invest the proceeds thereof, together with the said sum of eighty thousand pounds, in any securities in which trustees are authorised by the Irish Land Act, 1903, to invest trust moneys, and the annual income of such investments shall be applied in the manner directed by this Act. (4) If it happens that the moneys or securities standing to the credit of the account of the suitors in the Supreme Court are at any time reduced to a sum not sufficient to meet the demands upon them or cither of them, then the Treasury, so as to afford a complete indemnity to the suitors for any loss which they might sustain by reason of the passing of this Act, shall advance out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof such sum as they may think necessary, not exceeding in the whole the sum of eighty thousand pounds and the amount which would be realised at the date of such demands as aforesaid by the sale of the securities transferred in pursuance of this section, together with the dividends that
280
would have accrued thereon if such securities had not been so transferred "—(Mr. Charles Hobhouse.)
Brought up, and read the first and second time."
MR. BARRIE MR. BARRIE moved to leave out the words "and the unclaimed order and residue account, Land Judge's Court." He was sure the hon. Member for Waterford had no desire to mislead the House, but he had fallen into an error when he assured the House that this new clause in no way differed from the clause as proposed in the first instance. He thought the House would readily grasp two essential differences. Roth of them went to prove the undue haste with which the Bill had been passed through Committee. The first alteration, as pointed out by the representative of the Treasury, was that the Local Government Board would have charge where the Commissioners of Public Works were to have had it. He thought that was an improvement. In the history of the Bill they had had various financial proposals. Several of them had already been vetoed by the Treasury; but they found that now, on the last opportunity they had of reviewing the proceedings, an entirely new proposal had been inserted. He ventured to think it was unheard of that the House should be asked to consider a revision of this kind without there being at least an opportunity of consulting the Judges whom it affected. It was for that reason, and as a protest against the course taken by the Treasury, that he moved his Amendment.
SIR F. BAXBURYseconded. He could not conceive what right the Attorney-General had to put the words in at all. They had, he understood, handed over a particular sum under a guarantee; and if the Treasury desired to guarantee any more money, he thought they ought, to do so in a straightforward manner. He failed to see why the words were put in, and he thought his hon. friend's arguments were good.
Amendment proposed—
"In lines 9 and 10 to leave out the words 'and the unclaimed order and residue account, Land Judge's Court.'"—(Mr. Barrie.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. CLANCYsaid the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment was under an entire, misapprehension if he thought there was anything new in the words which he proposed should be left out. The original proposal was to take a certain sum of money from the dormant portion of the Suitors' Fund in Ireland. That covered various sums in various Courts: the Court of Mr. Justice Barton, the Court of the Master of the Rolls, and the Land Judge's Court; and the object of the words to which the hon. Member had taken exception was to make it clear what funds were being touched. With regard to the statement of the hon. Member that the Judges ought to have been consulted, he thought he would not be breaking any confidence if he said they had been consulted.
MR. BARRIE: This is the first we have heard of it.
MR. CLANCYsaid the Judges considered so much of the fund under their control as they thought would never be called upon should be released, and had stipulated that in the improbable event of any of those monies being called upon the Treasury should, as in many other cases, guarantee their repayment. A similar clause occurred in the Act which enabled the Courts of Justice in the Strand to be built, and a similar guarantee was given in 1894, when £15,000 wan taken to build a new Law Library in Dublin. The only reason for the new clause was that the guarantee which was in the original Bill, and which everybody agreed should be in the Bill, had been accidentally omitted. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Amendment. He had expressed himself in favour of the Bill.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that perhaps he might in half a dozen words explain away the difficulty of the hon. Member. The words he proposed to leave out did not import anything new, cither in form or substance, into the Bill, as approved by the Treasury. As a matter of fact, the unclaimed order and residue ac-
282
count of the Land Judge's Court was part of those dormant funds which were to supply both the Consols and cash for the purposes of the Acts; and it would be impossible to allot that cash which was to be the working balance unless they were to take part of the unclaimed order and residue account. If the hon. Gentleman were to succeed in getting the words struck out of the clause, he would only defeat the object, of which he professed to be an ardent supporter. With regard to the liability of the suitors under the residue account, their claims were in no way prejudiced by the Bill, because they, like other people interested in the Dormant Suitors' Fund, were completely protected by the guarantee of the Consolidated Fund. He therefore hoped the House would not accept the Amendment.
MR. GORDONsaid that the words which it was proposed to leave out related to part of the £100,000 mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's proposal. There were two sums, one of £80,000 which was to come out of the Suitors' Fund, and another of £100,000 which was to come from, amongst other sources, the unclaimed order and residue account. The fourth subsection provided an indemnity in respect of the £80,000, but did it provide an indemnity in respect of the other sum?
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid that was precisely why the fresh words had been introduced in the clause, which had been very carefully drafted and was in entire agreement with the wishes of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. It was to make it perfectly manifest to the House that there was the double guarantee.
MR. BARRIEsaid that having obtained information previously lacking, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause added to the Bill.
MR. CHERRYsaid the Government had a new clause standing in his name, and he would explain very briefly what

283
it was. It was really in substitution of Clause 5, providing for the distribution of the fund the Treasury placed at the disposal of the Irish authorities for the purposes of the Act. There was a little difficulty about the distribution owing to the uncertainty of the amount, and they had been obliged to alter the original proposals in the Bill, because it was found that a great portion of the funds which it was thought would be available would not be available. It provided for the payment of 25 per cent, of the annuity in each case. It was quite clear that could not be carried out, and another clause was inserted rather rapidly in Committee providing for the distribution of the money residue amongst the different local bodies in proportion to the amount of money due by them in respect of advances and also in respect of money spent by them for the purposes of the Act. Any local body which chose to spend money for the purposes of the Act would get a grant out of the funds exactly in proportion to the amount it spent. He need not trouble to read through the whole of the clause, but they might take it from him that it carried out that intention.
New Clause:—
"(1) The investments directed by Section 4 of this Act shall form and in this Act are referred to as 'the Irish Housing Fund.' (2) For the purpose of allocating and paying the annual income of the Irish Housing Fund the Local Government Board shall, in every local financial year, ascertain the amount which, as at the beginning of that year, each local authority is liable to pay in the course of that year for interest and sinking fund in respect of moneys borrowed by the authority after the passing of this Act for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts (in this section referred to as 'the annual housing charge') and shall allocate and pay the said income received during that year to and amongst the local authorities in manner following, that is to say, to each local authority liable in respect of an annual housing charge as aforesaid a sum that will bear the same proportion to the annual housing charge of that authority as the total amount of the said income so received as aforesaid will bear to the total amount of the annual housing charges of all local authorities in Ireland, provided that the sum so payable to any local authority shall not exceed the amount of the annual housing charge of the authority. (3) Any income of the Irish Housing Fund received prior to the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as income received during the local financial
284
year, which begins on that day. (4) Any sum payable to a local authority under this section shall be applied in or towards payment of the annual housing charge of the local authority, (5) So much of the annual income of the Irish Housing Fund as is not distributed under the foregoing provisions of this section shall be added to the principal of the said fund and invested accordingly."—(Mr. Cherry.)
Brought up, and read the first and second time.
MR. CLANCYsaid he thought it necessary to make a slight Amendment in this clause which was intended to make a distribution amongst the local authorities in proportion to the money they advanced. The clause as it stood contemplated only one system of repayment, namely, the annuity system. But there was another system of repayment which had been very often adopted in the past, and might be adopted in the future, namely, payment by instalments, the interest calculated on the money due becoming less and less according as the instalments were paid, and the interest being paid on the reduced sum. If any authority chose to pay in that way instead of by annuity, it could not get any advantage from this fund as the clause stood. As an Amendment he proposed to leave out the words "for interest and sinking fund" in order to insert a few lines further on after the word "Acts," the words "and repayable either by annuity or by instalment." The clause would then read: "As at the beginning of that year, each local authority is liable to pay in the course of that year in respect of moneys borrowed by the authorities after the passing of this Act for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts and repayable either by annuity or by instalments," and so on. The intention of that was that there should be absolute fairplay among local authorities. If authorities in Ireland chose to repay by annuity then this clause was perfect; he believed that it would suit its purpose; but if any local authority chose the other system of repayment by instalments, then this clause, as it stood, would deprive them of the benefit of this Housing Fund.
MR. FLAVINseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words 'for interest and sinking fund.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. CHERRYsaid he had no objection to the Amendment, though he preferred his own drafting; but if the hon. Gentleman wished to have the alteration, though the effect was the same, he did not refuse it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 7, after the word 'Acts,' to insert the words 'and repayable either by annuity or by instalment.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
MR. CHERRY MR. CHERRY moved a new clause in substitution for Clause 15. The clause as it stood in the Bill practically made it compulsory on town commissioners to adopt Part II. of the Act of 1890, which dealt with the demolition of unhealthy dwellings and the substitution of healthy and suitable ones. He thought that the local town commissioners should have this power, but at the same time it should be optional whether or not they should adopt the powers given by Part II. There might be cases of small towns where a great number of these unhealthy dwellings existed, and where the people were so heavily rated, and the town had such a large burden of debt that it would not be desirable that the local authority should undertake the demolition of these dwellings. In that case they would not adopt Part II. of the Act of 1890, and they would be able to improve the housing of the working classes when they so desired.
New clause—
"Any town commissioners, within the meaning of Section 99 of the Act of 1890, may, if they think fit, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, adopt Part II. of the Act of 1890 in like manner as they may adopt Part III. of that Act, and any references in Section 99 or in Section 100 of the Act of 1890 to Part III. of that Act shall, for the purposes of this section, be construed as references to Part II. of that Act."—(Mr. Cherry.)
Brought up, and read the first and second time.
*MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dublin County cannot be moved on the Report stage, as it proposes to increase the rates.
MR. CLANCYsaid he did not propose to submit the Amendment, but if the Government assured him that it was doubtful whether the rates could be increased or not as the clause now stood, he would ask them to make the Amendment in the House of Lords.
Clause added to the Bill.
MR. CLANCYmoved a new clause dealing with the rates of interest on loans.' The clause was copied from the Bill of the present session, moved by the President of the Local Government Board to deal with the housing of the working classes in England. It provided that the current rate authorised for loans out of the Local Loans Fund should be the rate whatever the time might be for which the loan was required. That was the substance of the clause. He had followed the exact words of the clause in the Bill of the President of the Local Government Board, and he did not think that he need argue the matter at all.
MR. FLAVINseconded.
New clause—
"Where a loan is made by the Public Works Commissioners to a local authority for any purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts as defined by this Act: (a) The loan shall be made at the minimum rate of interest for the time being allowed for loans out of the Local Loans Fund; and (b) as between loans for different periods the longer duration of the loan shall not be taken as a reason for Axing a higher rate of interest.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
Brought up and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be lead a second time."
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid he was disposed to accept the clause, though he had one or two drafting Amendments to propose.
MR. SPEAKER: The clause has not been read a second time yet.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman was going to accept the Amendment, because he thought that there was a great deal of difference between advancing a loan for two or three years and a loan for seventy or eighty years. It was not a sound financial argument that because a person was charged 3 per cent. for a loan for six months therefore he should be charged 3 per cent. for eighty years. That was the extraordinary proposal which the hon. Gentleman put before them. The hon. Member said that the same proposal was in the Bill brought in by the President of the Local Government Board, but that did not alter the case, because the right hon. Gentleman was not an absolute authority. He would not dream of taking his opinion on a financial question. He certainly thought it was a wrong clause, and he hoped his hon. friends from Ireland would divide against it. It was a very unfortunate precedent to introduce that the rate of interest on a loan for six months should be the same as on a loan for eighty years.
MR. JOHN REDMONDhoped the hon. Baronet would not persist in his objection to the clause. It was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee which inquired into the subject some time ago. Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland above the gangway would agree that the most important point of all in connection with housing in Ireland was that they should, if possible, be able to get the money at a reduced rate of interest. At present the cost to the local authorities was prohibitive, and unless it was reduced the Bill would be of very little use. He regarded this as one of the most important proposals in the Bill. He gave Gentlemen above the gangway full credit for trying to promote housing in Ireland, and as this was a portion of the proposal of the President of the Local Government Board in his Bill, and as it was accepted by the Government, he sincerely trusted the hon. Baronet would waive his objection and let them be unanimous on this as they had been on every point in connection with the Bill.
MR. GORDONsaid he did not pretend to a sound knowledge of finance and he did not offer any opinion of his own against that of the hon. Baronet, but he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that in connection with this matter of getting money for the housing of the working classes the most essential thing was to try to get it on as reasonable terms as it could be got from the Treasury, and if the Treasury was willing to concede it at the lowest rate he did not think anyone in the House ought to object. He asked his hon. friend to withdraw his objection.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the Amendment might raise the question whether the loans were to be made on eleemosynary terms or not. If they were, the practice ought to be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom. Before they could make up their minds whether this was really the proposal of the clause, perhaps the hon. Gentlemen who represented the Treasury could tell them how the Public Works Commissioners secured that their practice as regarded the minimum rate for loans secured the Treasury against loss. Part of that question would he whether loans for very long periods, such as eighty years, should be treated on different terms, as regarded interest, from loans for shorter periods. It might well be that for that purpose the Public Works Commissioners might have different scales of rates applying to two kinds of loans. The House was entitled to some explanation on that point.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid the purpose of the new clause was to bring the practice in relation to loans into line with that which, if the Housing and Town Planning Bill passed, would be the rule in regard to great Britain. The practice of the Treasury had undoubtedly been in the past to differentiate between loans for longer and shorter periods. The proposal here was to bring them into line so as to make the rate of interest pay able for the loan the same whether for a short or a long period. As a matter of fact the arrangement had been come to between the Treasury and the Local Government Board

289
that the period for which the loan upon the identical rate of interest should run should not exceed, save in the case of the purchase of land, sixty years. That would secure the Treasury against any possible loss.
MR. BARBIEsaid he had listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's explanation. The Government was making a most valuable concession, and he congratulated the hon. Member in charge of the Bill. It would be of the greatest value to them all over the country to have a minimum rate and a maximum period for repayment.
Amendments agreed to—
"In line 1, to leave out the words 'Public Works Commissioners' and to insert the words 'Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
"In line 3, to omit the word 'Ireland.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
"In line 3, to leave out the words 'as defined by this Act.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
Amendments agreed to—
"In page 1, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words 'as defined by this Act.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
"In page 1, line 11, to leave out the words 'Public Work Commissioners,' and to insert the words 'Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
MR. HOBHOUSEin moving to omit "shall" and insert "may" in line 11, said the Bill as it stood would compel the Board of Works to lend money to local authorities without the exercise of any discretion, at all if the consent of the Local Government Board had once been given to the local authority. They did not in any way want to fetter the exercise and use of this gift, but they thought there ought to be reserved to the Board of Works discretion after hearing the case and before advancing the money. In Ireland the Board of Works had to find the money which the Local Government Board had sanctioned. They had in the clause which had just been accepted made a very considerable concession to local authorities by reducing the payment of interest, and that threw still greater
290
responsibility upon those who had to find the money, and it was to safeguard the Board of Works in this new departure that he proposed to give them a discretion.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 11, to leave out the word 'shall,' and to insert the word 'may.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Bill."
MR. CLANCYsaid he did not know whether it was any use to appeal to the hon. Gentleman to allow the clause to remain as it stood. What they intended was that the recommendation of the Local Government Board should be final. They would investigate every point before sanctioning the scheme, and the first point inquired into was the financial question—namely, what were the rates, the position of the local authority as to debt, and what was the period for which the loan ought to be made. If the Amendment was made the Treasury might stop in and refuse to pay after the Local Government Board had made its recommendation, and the whole scheme might fall to the ground.
MR. FLAVINpointed out that the Local Government Board was a Government Department, and that a local inquiry must be held with sworn evidence as to the necessity for the loan. Surely the Local Government Board inspector would not approve the loan unless the local authority was financially sound and badly wanted the money to build houses. It might happen under the Amendment that after all the expense of the inquiry and after the scheme was approved, the Board of Works would veto the report of the Local Government Board inspector and refuse to advance the money. If that occurred it would simply mean that the Act would become a failure, because the local authority would not promote a second inquiry after having had the first and then failed to get the grant. He strongly supported the view of his hon. friend. It was an extraordinary position that one Government Department should step in and override the decision of another. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would leave the words as they stood in the Bill.
MR. JOYCEsaid a case in point had occurred within the past six weeks. A loan was applied for by a local authority to the Local Government Board which, after holding an inquiry, sanctioned the loan. The Board of Works presumably held another inquiry on their own and refused to advance the loan. That was what they wanted to put a stop to.
MR. HOBHOUSEsaid he was afraid he must adhere to the alteration which he had proposed, but as long as he was connected with the post which he now held, no unfair advantage should be taken of the change which he desired to make in the Bill. After all, there was another source open, in Ireland as in England, to the local authorities, and that was the ordinary money market. The difference in practice as he understood in England and in Ireland was that in England, as a rule, the local authority could go into the market and raise the money they wanted. In Ireland he understood the practice was different as a rule, and the local authority went to the Board of Works to raise the money. He did not think they could possibly in a Bill of this sort entirely revolutionise the practice which had obtained, whether for good or for evil, in Ireland for a long time, and while he sympathised with the difficulties which hon. Gentlemen below the gangway saw in the restriction which he proposed to make, he was afraid he could not at present withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 14, at end to insert the words 'by the Local Government Board.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
MR. BARRIE MR. BARRIE moved the omission of subsection (2) of Clause 1 which he thought entirely unnecessary and uncalled for. Loans under the terms of the Bill did not require to be paid out until the work had proceeded to a certain extent, and, indeed, until the houses proposed to be built were within a very few months of giving rent.
SIR F. BANBURYseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 15, to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 1."—(Mr. Barrie.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left cut, to the word 'so,' in page 1, line 17, stand part of the Bill."
MR. CLANCYhoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment. The effect of the subsection was simply to suspend repayment of the principal until the houses were built and became a paying concern. He could imagine the objection being made to this if the interest upon the money were in any jeopardy, but the interest would continue to be paid from the very moment the money was borrowed. It was only an infinitesimal part of the principal that would not begin to be repaid until two years had passed—the time estimated for the building and letting of the houses. It was a most reasonable thing not to ask the local authorities, provided they paid interest in the meantime, to repay any of the principal until they had got rents from the houses.
MR. CHERRYsaid he did not understand on what grounds the hon. Member for North Londonderry objected. He could understand the Treasury objecting because repayment of the principal was postponed, but they had agreed to the clause, and speaking as an Irishman he was delighted to get any small advantage he could. The local authority borrowing would be able under the clause to defer payment of the principal sum for a little time, and he did not see why an Irishman should throw away that advantage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments agreed to—
"In page 1, line 17, to leave out the words 'so defined as aforesaid.'"
"In page 1, line 20, at end, to insert the words 'Borrowing powers shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be exercised upon the date of the execution of the mortgage or other instrument securing the loan.'"
"In page 1, line 22, to leave out the words 'as denned by this Act.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
MR. BARRIE MR. BARRIE moved to add at the end of Clause 2, "Always provided that such borrowings do not exceed the present limitation by more than one-third." He said that under this Act

293
all limitation was moved, and consequently he thought it was necessary to fix some such limitation as that which was suggested in his Amendment.
SIR F. BANBUEYseconded. He thought this was a very essential Amendment. The day before yesterday he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the loss had been to the Irish Land Commissioners, who had lent money for Irish purposes, and he was referred to a certain Return published last session. From that Return he found that since 1881 no less a sum than £9,500,000 had been written off as bad debts.
MR. FLAVIN: What has been written off in this country?
SIR F.BANBURYsaid that that did not make it any better, and he was not aware that there had been a single penny written off in that way in this country. But two wrongs did not make a right, and it was a fact that since 1881 £9,500,000 had been written off as bad debts. He did not think that municipalities should have unlimited power to borrow even at low rates. This was a most important Amendment, and one which everybody who had any regard for economy ought to support. This was not entirely an Irish question, because most of the money came from England.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 26, at the end, to insert the words 'Always provided that such borrowings do not exceed the present limitations by more than one-third.'"—(Mr. Barrie.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CHERRYsaid that this Amendment was intended to limit the power of borrowing. There were cases in Ireland where the housing of the poor was in such a bad condition that it was highly desirable that this Act should be put into force at once, and there were many small Irish towns where the restriction proposed would not be advisable. He agreed that it was desirable that money should not be lent in an extravagant way to local bodies in Ireland, but he thought the Local Government Board and the Board of Works might safely be entrusted to sec to the matter. The authorities were extremely careful to see that advances were not made beyond the powers sanctioned by law. In the interests of the Bill he appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. BARRIEsaid he was sorry, but he could not withdraw his Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 34; Noes, 190. (Division List No. 184.)

AYES.

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, J.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gretton, John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hill, Sir Clement

Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

Clark, George Smith

Houston, Robert Paterson

Thomson,Mr. Mitchell (Lanark

Clive, Percy Archer

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohn H.

Valentia, Viscount

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart

Craig, Captain Jame (Down,E.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Younger, George

Dairympie, Viscount

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Duncan,Robert (Lanark Govan

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Hugh Barrie and Sir Frederick Banbury.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Fell, Arthur

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Gardner, Ernest

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

Boland, John

Clancy, John Joseph

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Bowerman, C. W.

Cleland, J. W.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Branch, James

Clough, William

Astbury, John Meir

Brigg, John

Clynes, J. R.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brooke, Stopford

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Barnes, G. N.

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

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

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Bell, Richard

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cooper, G. J.

Benn, Sir J.Williams(Devon'prt

Cameron, Robert

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

Bennett, E. N.

Charming, Sir Francis Allaton

Cowan, W. H.

Bethell, T. B. (Essex, Maldon)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Cox, Harold

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Crooks, William

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Ridsdale, E. A.

Crosfield, A. H.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cullinan, J.

Lundon, W.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Curran, Peter Francis

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Devlin, Joseph

Lynch, H. B.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

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

MacdonalLd, J. R. (Leicester)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rowlands J.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Russell, T. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Elibank, Master of

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

M'Callum,John M.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Crae, Sir George

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

Ferens, T. R.

M'Killop, W.

Seaverns, J. H.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Maddison, Frederick

Seely, Colonel

Flynn, James Christopher

Mallet, Charles E.

Shackleton, David James

Fuller, John Michael F.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew,W.

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

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

Glendinning, R. G.

Marnham, F. J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Meagher, Michael

Sheehy, David

Gulland, John W.

Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim,N.

Silcoek, Thomas Ball

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Menzies, Walter

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Halpin, J.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Soares, Ernest J.

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Mond, A.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Mooney, J. J.

Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Harmsworth,Cecil B.(Worc'str)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Steadman, W. C.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hazleton, Richard

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Heaton, John Henniker

Nicholson,Charles N. (Doncast'r

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Helme, Norval Watson

Nolan Joseph

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nuttall, Harry

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Henry, Charles S.

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Ure, Alexander

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Ward John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Hodge, John

O'Doherty, Philip

Wardle, (George J.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Dowd, John

Wason, Rt.Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Hudson, Walter

O'Grady, J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Watt, Henry A.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White. J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Jones,Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

Partington, Oswald

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pearee, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Whitehead, Rowland

Jowett, F. W.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Whitley. John Henry (Halifax)

Joyce, Michael

Philipes, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Wiles, Thomas

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Williamson, A.

Kilbride, Denis

Pirie, Duncan, V.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Pollard, Dr.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Yoxall, James Henry

Lambert, George

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

Lamont, Norman

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Captain Donclan.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Redmond, John E.(Waterford

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Redmond, William (Clare)

Lea, Hugh Cecil(St.Paneras, E.

Rees, J. D.

MR. BARRIE MR. BARRIE moved to leave out Clause 3, because in his opinion the proposals it contained were without precedent in Irish legislation.
CAPTAIN CRAIGseconded. He thought this clause would lead to a great deal of wastefulness, and not only this, but it would take away the power of the veto by the Local Government Board who had always had the last voice in disputes in regard to securities given for money borrowed. The clause seemed to him to give far too wide borrowing powers. Nothing was laid down as to how the
296
money was to be borrowed or what rate of interest was to be paid, and altogether it would tend to encourage a very bad state of finance. He did not think the Government were justified in suggesting that the safeguard proposed by his hon. friend should be rejected, and he would be glad to hear from the Attorney-General why it was proposed to restrict the powers of the Local Government Board in this matter. They could not be too cautious in regard to money matters in Ireland, and he hoped the House would consent to leave out this clause.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 1, to leave out Clause 3."—(Mr. Barrie.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'without' in page 2, line 3, stand part of the Bill."
MR. CLANCYsaid the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North Londonderry was absolutely ridiculous from the point of view of an Irishman who professed to be in favour of the Bill. The whole object of the clause was to enable a local authority which had borrowed at a high rate of interest to borrow at a lower rate in order to wipe off debt, and he could not see what objection there could be to that at all. The hon. Member said that the clause was unprecedented, but he was wrong, because there were several precedents for it. The last precedent was set by the late Unionist Government, who put into an Act of Parliament a section from which the clause now under discussion had been copied and not a single word altered The clause simply gave county councils power to re-borrow on the terms laid down in the clause, and it did not increase their capital liabilities, at all. It would enable those local bodies who had borrowed at 4½ per cent. to take advantage of borrowing at the lower rate of interest under the Bill.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he understood that the clause meant that where the local authority had borrowed money at 4½ per cent., they might go to the Treasury and borrow money at 3 per cent, in order to pay off the 4½ per cent, loan. The clause, however, went much beyond that. It was the most extraordinary clause he had ever read, and much more appropriate to some Oriental country or a South American Republic. As he read the clause it gave county councils the power to borrow and never pay off. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Nothing could be worse or more detrimental to the Irish county councils, than to allow such a clause to pass. Whatever the words at the end of the clause might mean, there was no doubt that the interpretation which he had given of the clause was the correct one, and under those circumstances he should
298
support the proposal made by his hon. friend.
MR. CHERRYthought the objections which had been raised to the clause would be removed if hon. Members would consider the Amendment lower down on the Paper which the Government advised the House to accept. He thought that would meet the point raised by the hon. Member for North Londonderry.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments agreed to—
"In page 2, line 3, to leave out the words 'without any,' and to insert the words 'with the.'"—(Mr. Barrie.)
"In page 2, line 14, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that it shall not be obligatory upon the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to lend money to any local authority for any of the purposes authorised by this section.'"
"In page 2, to leave out Clause 4."
"In page 3, to leave out Clause 5."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
SIR F. BANBURYmoved to leave out Clause 6.
CAPTAIN CRAIGseconded. He asked whether there would be any possibility of any large schemes being carried out without the consent of the Local Government Board. The clause conferred a very wide power which ought not to be conferred under a Bill of this kind. He thought there should be some security or safeguard provided.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 35, to leave out Clause 6."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'For,' in page 4, line 13, stand part of the Bill."
MR. CLANCYexpressed the hope that the House would not assent to the Amendment. The clause had already been carefully considered by the Government, and they were more responsible for the words than any private Member The words were put in more for the purpose of having regard to existing legislation than for the purpose of depriving the local authority of any power whatever.
MR. CHERRYsaid the hon. and gallant Member objected to a scheme being passed without the sanction of Parliament or of the Local Government Board. He pointed out that the only scheme that would be put in force would be with the sanction of the Local Government Board. Nothing could be done here by any local body. The obtaining of the sanction of Parliament would be an expensive and dilatory process. There was no danger of any predatory scheme being adopted.
MR. LONSDALEthought that if the sanction of the Local Government Board had to be obtained, that should satisfy hon. Members.
SIR HENRY KIMBERsuggested that some inquiry should be made into this matter. He had sat on Committees this session and last session which had considered many Bills dealing with the same kind of subject as that with which this clause dealt, and it was necessary to proceed by Provisional Order.
MR. CLANCYsaid the way the matter stood was this: The late Government in one of their Housing Acts made it possible to obtain certain of these Orders without the sanction of Parliament and merely with the sanction of the Local Government Board. One small case was left un-provided for by the late Government in 1903 or 1901, and it was to provide for that case that this clause was now proposed.
MR. GORDONsaid he had always understood that these Orders had to be confirmed by Parliament. What was now proposed would certainly introduce a new principle with respect to the right which Parliament exercised to object to the confirmation of these Orders. He did not say whether the new principle was a good or a bad one, but he would ask the Attorney-General to consider the point before they passed the Bill.
MR. CHERRYsaid that the hon. and learned Member had forgotten that some of the Labourers Acts did not require that Parliament should confirm Orders. This was an exactly parallel case. This was practically a Labourers Act for towns,
300
and why on earth should not the procedure be the same in both cases? The only object in not having the Orders confirmed by Parliament was to save expense and delay.
CAPTAIN CRAIGasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CHERRY MR. CHERRY moved to amend subsection (3) with the object of providing that certain statutory advertisements might be published in any month, instead of at the periods fixed by existing enactments.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 13, to leave out subsection (3), and to insert the words '(3) For the purposes of this section, Section 203 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and Section 7 of the Act of 1890 shall have effect with the following modifications, that is to say, the advertisements mentioned in those sections respectively may be published in any month, and the notices mentioned in those sections respectively shall be served in the month next following the month in which the advertisements are published.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
Amendment agreed to.
CAPTAIN CRAIG CAPTAIN CRAIG moved to leave out subsection (4). It seemed to him that under this subsection if a scheme was brought forward and sanctioned by the Local Government Board, no matter how autocratic or unjust, no one would have the right to issue an injunction or prohibition. If the Local Government Board were doing no harm, why should it not be in the power of an aggrieved person to apply for an injunction?
MR. CLANCYsaid he would accept the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out subsection (4)."—(Captain Craig.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 23, to leave out the word 'receive,' land insert the words 'with the consent of the Local Government Board accept.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
Amendment agreed to.
SIR F. BANBURY SIR F. BANBURY moved to omit Clause 9. It seemed to him to be an exceedingly bad clause because it proposed to give to local authorities power to make remissions and abatements of rates in certain cases. If the houses had been built in accordance with plans approved of by the local authority and were occupied by persons of the working classes at rents sanctioned by the local authority then the local authority might excuse the occupants from paying rates. He had always understood that taxation and representation, should go together. At least, that was an adage of the old Liberal Party. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to deprive these people of the franchise? Then, if they were not to pay rates, were the other people in the district not only to pay their own rates but the rates of these working class occupants? It seemed to him that it would be quite impossible to let a clause of that sort go through. There was another extraordinary proviso which stated that if at any time any such premises were let to or occupied by other persons, and at rents not sanctioned by the local authority, any rates remitted or abated should become a charge upon the owner's interest in the premises, and might be recovered from the owner in a Court of summary jurisdiction. The owner might let a house to a working man who might sub-let it to a person who was not a working man, and the owner was to be penalised by having to pay the rates! Surely the Government were not serious in supporting a clause of that sort. It subverted every precedent that had ever guided any Parliament for the last 900 years; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would consent to its deletion, more especially as it did not touch the principle of the Bill. Moreover, this was a rateable clause, and he did not know that it came within the scope of the Bill. He asked Mr. Speaker's ruling as to whether this clause really was in order. The title of the Bill was "Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill "; it had nothing to do with the remission of rates.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid he was afraid the hon. Baronet was too late in taking the objection; he ought to have taken it at an earlier stage.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that this was one of the Bills which had been sent to a Grand Committee, and he was not on the Committee. He begged to move the omission of the clause.
CAPTAIN CRAIGseconded the Amendment. He must say that this clause could not have been seriously considered in Committee, and perhaps the pro-motors of that Bill would withdraw it even at that late hour. The more he studied the clause the more extraordinary it seemed to be. It said that so long as "such premises shall be and shall continue to be let to, and occupied by persons of the working classes only." Everybody knew that in labourers' cottages throughout Ireland the occupants were not always of the labouring class; and he had no doubt that in a certain time these houses, if built, would not be occupied by working classes. The clause did not in fact touch the question of the housing of the working classes; and he believed that there must be some hidden reason for excusing these people from paying rates. He had no doubt many occupants of the benches below the gangway would like to see the working classes in Ireland excused from paying rates as well as to have the rents of their houses fixed for them. Nothing could be further from the promotion of good government in any town in Ireland than the fact of people being allowed to have a vote in the locality without at the same time paying rates. If this clause remained in the Bill the effect would be that local elections throughout Ireland would turn to a large extent on the question of rents and the rates they paid on their houses. Then, if there was a loss on letting these houses he did not know upon whom that loss would eventually fall, if it were not to be charged on the rates. The clause seemed to him an anomaly, and an absurdity unless there was some reason for it of which they had not yet heard.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 26, to learn out Clause 9."— Sir F. Banbury.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'during,' in page 5, line 28, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. GORDONsaid he did not see why a clause like this should be allowed to stand. The man who built the houses was to be at the mercy of the local authority as to the remission of the rates, and the result would lie that the owner would make up the amount of the rates by putting it on the rent. Again, if the house was let to somebody who did not belong to the working classes the rates were to be a charge on the owners' interest in the property for ten years. Who was to determine whether the house was let to a person belonging to the working classes? It seemed that that was to be determined by the local authority and that their determination was to be final. That was to say that if the local authority came to the conclusion that an occupant of a house did not belong to the working classes, they could make the owner pay the rates for ten years. He maintained that the clause was wholly unnecessary. The right way to provide houses for the working classes was that it should be done directly by the local authority, and not indirectly as the Bill proposed.
MR. CLANCYsaid that the object of this clause was to induce private speculators, out of their own resources, to undertake the building of houses for the working classes, and thereby to relieve the local authorities of part of the burden of raising the money for that purpose. He could not imagine anyone having a real objection to a clause of that kind. It was to be presumed that building speculators would not undertake the erection of such houses without being intelligent enough to know the conditions under which they invested their money. The clause presented to them in plain terms the conditions under which they were to have a certain advantage, and the circumstances under which they might lose that advantage if they violated the conditions. It could not be said that any hardship would be inflicted on anyone in these circumstances. An hon. Member had made a statement as to some concealed reason for the clause. He could assure the hon. Member that there was no ground for any such suspicion. Its whole object was to relieve municipalities from the burden of raising the money
304
themselves if they could get it from private sources. The clause ought to be welcomed by the House, for it would tend to lessen the amount borrowed from the State and so relieve the Exchequer. What hardship was there in that? He confessed that he did not expect a very large advantage from the clause, but he believed that a certain number of houses would be built in every town in Ireland if the clause was passed.
*MR. NANNETTIsaid he was surprised that there should be any objection to the clause. The object of it was to hold out inducements to private capitalists to build houses for the working classes of Ireland. He knew that in Dublin that very intention was being carried out at the present moment. There were several cases where capitalists had taken advantage of the abatement of the rates to build houses for the working classes, and so had relieved many corporations from that expenditure when they wanted the money for other purposes. He was surprised to find hon. Members raising an objection. He was against municipalisation in this matter. He would much prefer to see houses of this kind built by private individuals than to see it made a municipal undertaking. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would resist the Amendment.
MR. CHERRYthought the House would agree that this was a very strong clause. He proposed to amend it by inserting in the third line of the clause, "with the consent of the Local Government Board." The result would be that the Local Government Board would be the deciding body, and it was very unlikely that the Local Government Board would sanction the remission of rates to a private speculator for the purpose of building houses unless they saw it would be for the benefit of the ratepayers. The clause proposed to restrict the rates that could be remitted under this clause to rates other than the poor rate, and he thought with his Amendment and the further Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin, to except the poor rate, there

305
would be security against any abuse of the powers asked for. He supported the clause and hoped, with the modifications proposed, it would be accepted.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 157; Noes, 25. (Division List No. 185.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

Horniman, Emslie John

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Hudson, Walter

Pirie, Duncan V.

Astbury, John Meir

Jackson, R. S.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Jowett, F. W.

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

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Joyce, Michael

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

Bell, Richard

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Reddy, M.

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Bennett, E. N.

Kekewich, Sir George

Redmond, William (Clare)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Kilbride, Denis

Rees, J. D.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Laidlaw, Robert

Ridsdale, E. A.

Boland, John

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Bowernman, C. W.

Lambert, George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Branch, James

Lamont, Norman

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Brigg, John

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Brooke, Stopford

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Rowlands, J.

Bryce, J. Annan

Lundon, W.

Russell, T. W.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B' ghs

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Scott, AH(Ashton-under-Lyne)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Seaverns, J. H.

Clancy, John Joseph

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Seely, Colonel

Cleland, J. W.

Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Clough, William

M'Callum, John M.

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

M'Crae, Sir George

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Condon, Thomas Joseph

M'Kean, John

Sheehy, David

Cooper, G. J.

M'Killop, W.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Crean, Eugene

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Stanley,Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Crooks, William.

Marnham, F. J.

Steadman, W. C.

Crosfield, A. H.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Cullinan, J.

Meagher, Michael

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Curran, Peter Francis

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Devlin, Joseph

Menzies, Walter

Ure, Alexander

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Vivian, Henry

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Mooney, J. J.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Wardle, George J.

Elibank, Master of

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

Watt, Henry A.

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph

White, J. D. (Dumbartonsihire)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Glendinning, R. G.

Nuttall, Harry

Whitehead, Rowland

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary,Mid

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Gulland, John W.

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

O'Doherty, Philip

Wiles, Thomas

Halpin, J.

O'Dowd, John

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Grady, J

Williamson, A.

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N)

Wilson. J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Hazleton, Richard

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N.

Yoxall, James Henry

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Malley, William

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Shaughnessy, P J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Hodge, John

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Hogan, Michael

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

NOES.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Houston, Robert Paterson

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thomson, W.Mitchell (Lanark)

Gordon, J.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Younger, George

Hamilton, Marquess of

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Hill, Sir Clement

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Captain Craig.

Hills, J. W.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Amendments agreed to—
"In page 5, line 28, before the word 'during,' to insert the words 'with the consent of the Local Government Board.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
"In page 5, line 30, after the word 'rates,' to insert the words 'except the poor rate.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
"In page 7, line 3, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words 'and as regards any land acquired from the Commissioners of Woods, subject to the consent of those Commissioners.'"—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
"To omit Clause 15."—(Mr. Cherry.)
"In page 7, line 30, at beginning, to insert the words 'In this Act unless the context otherwise requires—the expression "Local Government Board" means "the Local Government Board for Ireland;" the expression "local financial year" means "the twelve months ending the thirty-first day of March;" the expression "purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts" means "any purposes authorised by the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1896, or by any of those Acts, or by this Act."'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
"In page 8, line 1, after the word 'suitors,' leave out the word 'of,' and insert the word 'in.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
Bill read the third time, and passed.

WILD BIRDS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that this was a Bill which would meet with perfect agreement and endorsement from every Member of the House. But hon. Members, he thought, would be somewhat chagrined if the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London did not give some explanation of it. It would be an exceptional treat for hon. Members to hear a few words from the hon. Baronet on a Friday afternoon. This was a Bill which could only have justice done to it by the hon. Member for the City of London. It had a most laudable object; it sought to preserve wild birds from cruel destruction, and as everybody well knew there was no place in the whole country where wild birds so abounded as in the constituency of the hon. Member. He was certain the hon. Baronet would be able to give such an explanation of the merits of his measure as would secure for it the
308
hearty and even enthusiastic approval of the House.
Sir F. BANBURYsaid that he had already, in introducing the Bill, explained its objects to the House. Such a course having been taken on the First Reading it was not usual to repeat it on the Second Reading stage, and under the circumstances therefore he felt it was unnecessary that he should trouble the House with any observations in response to the appeal of the hon. Member for East Clare.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—(Sir F. Banbury.)

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS DUTIES) BILL.
Read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—(Mr. Joseph Pease.)

PREVENTION OF CRIME [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the cost of establishing Borstal Institutions in pursuance of any Act of the present session, to make better provision for the Prevention of Crime, and for other purposes incidental thereto, and to authorise the payment to societies of any Expenses incurred by them under such Act in assisting or supervising persons discharged from a Borstal Institution."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
Whereupon Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.
Adjourned at Eleven minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 136.)
House adjourned at five minutes past Three o'clock, till Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.