Sitting of 1 December 1909

Preamble
The House reassembled, after the adjournment from Thursday, 25th November.
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

PETITION.
Mr. BOLANDpresented a Petition from the parents of the 120 Catholic children who attend the Catholic school at Low Valley, near Barnsley, Yorkshire. The petitioners stated that they "have maintained this school for four years and three months by a weekly levy on their wages, and, in addition, have had to pay the usual education rates and taxes from which they derive no benefit." They appealed to the House "to protect for them the rights and liberties granted to all by Magna Charta and the forms of law secured to all by the Bill of Bights, and also to secure for them the holding of an inquiry by the Minister of Education which will redress their grievances."
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Colonial Navies (Training of Officers).
  Mr. BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the fullest facilities will be given for training the officers of the Colonial navies by receiving them on board the ships of the Royal Navy?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): A reference to Parliamentary Paper (Cd. 4948) giving the correspondence and papers relating to the Conference of this year on the Naval and Military Defence of the Empire, shows that the question to which the hon. Member alludes has received consideration; and I need scarcely add that the Admiralty will give every assistance which may be practicable in this matter.

  Short Service Men (Navy).
  Mr. BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could state how many men are now on active service who have been enlisted as short service men; and whether, in view of the six years' experience of the system, the Board can see their way to reducing their number by substituting long service men again?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: By the latest information available the numbers of special service ratings borne were—

  Special service seamen

  1,683

  Special service stokers

  6,190

  7,873

  out of a total number in each class of—

  Seamen

  42,458

  Stokers

  32,604

  75,062

  There is no intention of altering the present arrangements.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: Why has the number of stokers been increased by nearly 3,000?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know. Will the hon. Member give notice of that question?

  Foreigners Training in the Navy.
  Mr. BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many foreigners of the Chinese and other navies have been received on board His Majesty's ships for training during 1908 and 1909; whether any application has been received in reference to any more being embarked in the ships of the Royal Navy; and, if so, what answer has been returned?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply to the first part of the question is 18; and to the second part in the affirmative. The reply to the third part is that the request will be acceded to.

  Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth and Company (Fair Wages Clause).
  Mr. HUDSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state what action has been taken by the Admiralty to investigate the truth or otherwise of the allegation that the firm of Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company, of Elswick, are not observing the Fair Wage Clause in the payment of certain electrical wiremen in their employ, or whether the contrary statement by the firm in question is taken as satisfactory and final; whether he is aware that this matter has been in negotiation since July, 1908; and whether he will take steps to have it thoroughly investigated and promptly settled?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Full enquiries were made of the firm upon the statements originally made, and the conclusion was

  477
  reached that the Fair Wages Clause was not being infringed. My hon. Friend was so informed in reply to a question in July of last year. If, however, he is in a position to submit any detailed particulars applicable to the present time which seem to suggest the contrary, I will carefully consider them.
  Mr. HUDSON: Has the hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that the men employed on the vessel supplied the names of men who were not paid the standard wages?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Inquiries were, made into the trades supplied to us, and the replies received were what I gave to my hon. Friend. If, in addition, he would like any further information, or if there is any complaint with respect to the present time, I will carefully consider the matter.
  Mr. CURRAN: Were investigations made last year; and, if so, what were the results of those investigations?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I say full inquiry was made, and the result I communicated to my hon. Friend.

  Torpedo Destroyers (Purchased).
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Ashley)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps are being taken to replace the destroyers "Blackwater" and "Lee," which have been lost this year?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Two destroyers of approximately similar design to the "Blackwater" have been purchased ready built from a British firm, and added to the Navy list.

  British Indians in the Transvaal.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Immigration Law of the Transvaal, read in conjunction with the Registration Law of that Colony, constitutes a barrier against the immigration into that Colony of British-Indians, by reason of their race, irrespective of any educational or property qualifications they may possess; and whether such legislation exists in any other part of His Majesty's dominions?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): Yes, Sir. Even more stringent legislation has existed in the late Orange Free State and the present Orange River Colony for many years past.

  Government Officers in Northern Nigeria.
  Sir JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether the local allowance of 5s. a day granted seven years ago in consideration of the high cost of living, to Government officers in Northern Nigeria has been cut down and is to be discontinued altogether in March next; and whether the salaries of these officers have been increased, or if there is reason to suppose that the cost of living there has been reduced?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir. The reasons for this action were stated at length by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 31st July, 1906, in reply to a question in this House, to which I beg leave to refer the right hon. Gentleman. It is a very long statement; too long, I think, to read to the House. I shall be happy to send him a copy of that reply for facility of reference, and I need only add to it that, in order to effect the change as gradually as possible, the allowance was reduced by 1s. a day in each year from 1906 onwards.
  Sir JOHN KENNAWAY: Have the salaries been raised?
  Colonel SEELY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me notice of that question, because it will involve a reference to the salaries of the officials?

  Argentine Cattle for United Kingdom.
  Mr. BOWER MANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received to the further communication addressed to the Argentine Government regarding the desire to export to the United Kingdom live cattle for slaughter, in consequence of the freedom of that country from foot-and-mouth disease; and, if so, will he state the nature of such reply?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question, and to say that no reply has as yet been received to the further communication mentioned.
  Mr. WATT: What is the reason why these cattle should be excluded when that country is free from this disease?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: My Noble Friend has said that the Board will not let in these cattle until they are satisfied, and they are not satisfied at the present time.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: If the replies prove to be satisfactory will the Board remove the restrictions?

  Foreign Naval Construction.
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Ashley)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Argentine, Chile, China, and Turkey are about to embark on a programme involving the construction of a considerable number of armoured ships; and, if so, whether any steps are being taken to assist British builders to secure a share of these orders?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The Foreign Office are aware that the Governments of Argentine and Chile are contemplating the construction of a number of armoured ships, and that a Commission of Inquiry has been recently despatched to this country by the Chinese Government to study the question of naval construction. As regards Turkey, we are not aware that any definite proposals have been drawn up. All proper assistance is afforded to British firms in such cases.

  Carbon-Monoxide Gas Poisoning at Northwich.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the recent case in which a workman was found dead and another unconscious at the Winnington (Northwich) Chemical Works; whether these men had been overcome by carbon-monoxide gas; and, if so, whether he will further consider the advisability of scheduling affection by this gas as a dangerous disease under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  The SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I have obtained a report with regard to the circumstances of this case, from which it appears that the men were suddenly overcome by carbon-monoxide gas while clearing out a cylinder in a tower used for washing residual gases. The case, therefore, appears to be one, not of disease, but of accident, to which the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act are already applicable. It was announced at the inquest, on behalf of the employers, that full compensation would be paid.

  Destruction of Rabbits (Sentences).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the sentence passed on each of three men for the offence of destroying two rabbits on land in the occupation of a Mr. Cousins, of Tregwynt, namely, two months' imprisonment each,
  480
  with hard labour, on the expiration of the sentences each defendant to find a surety of £10 or two sureties of £5. failing this, each defendant to be further imprisoned for six months; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Owing to difficulty in tracing the case to which the hon. Member refers, I have only just been able to obtain a police report, and have not yet had time to communicate with the magistrates. The case is, therefore, still under my consideration, and I will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as I am in a position to do so.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will make the question one of urgency, because, if not, the result will be that the men's time will have expired?

  Metropolitan Police Force (Promotions).
  Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether all constables in the Metropolitan Police Force have an equal chance of competing for any vacancies that may occur from time to time for promotion in the force, or whether those allowed to compete are specially selected for that purpose; and, if so, by whom?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Promotion in the Metropolitan Police is not a mere question of educational fitness such as can be tested by an examination. It depends also, and mainly, on whether the man has a good record, and whether his practical work shows him to be suitable for the efficient discharge of the duties, of the higher post. Only those men who possess these essential qualifications are selected by the Commissioner to compete for promotion.
  Mr. REMNANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is any competition at all allowed amongst constables in the force for promotion, or whether it is entirely due to the favour of his superiors?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: It is not a question of favour but of efficiency.
  Mr. REMNANT: Who has to decide that?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The Commissioner.
  Mr. REMNANT: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Commissioner is the sole judge of this matter and not the superior officers?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: He is the responsible head of the force and I have no reason to think he has in any way misused his opportunities.
  Mr. REMNANT: Upon whose recommendation does the Commissioner act?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: He acts upon his own knowledge and upon the advice of those qualified by their position in the force to so advise him.

  Traffic Board (London).
  Mr. PEELasked the President of the Hoard of Trade whether His Majesty's Government has taken any steps to give effect to the views put forward by the deputation from the London County Council to the Prime Minister on 24th November, 1908, with regard to the establishment of a Traffic Board for London; in this connection, if he will state what duties are performed by the London Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade; and whether it is the intention of the Government that that branch shall be in substitution for the Traffic Board suggested in Part III. of the Report of the Royal Commission on London Traffic?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): Since the deputation referred to waited upon the Prime Minister steps have been taken to strengthen the London Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade. The principal duties of this branch are to study the problem of London traffic continuously in all its branches, to keep the statistics up to date, to report upon all schemes affecting London traffic seeking statutory authority, and to make an annual report on the whole subject for submission to Parliament. The increase lately sanctioned in the staff of this branch will enable it to undertake certain special enquiries recommended by the Royal Commission on London Traffic, particularly with regard to the roads leading out of London. The branch performs many of the duties that would have been assigned to the Traffic Board recommended by the Royal Commission, and to this extent it may be regarded as a substitute for it, at all events, for the present. Should an independent statutory board be constituted by a future Act of Parliament it would find its task materially simplified and facilitated by the work now being carried out by the London Traffic Branch.

  Labour Exchange Appointments.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked how many appointments have been made by his Department in connection with the Labour Exchanges, the names of those appointed, the salary attached to the position, and the experience in the performance of similar duties to those involved in the new appointment which each of the appointees has had?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I propose, when the first batch of appointments is complete, to issue a statement on the subject. In making the higher appointments regard will be had, in the first place, to organising and administrative capacity and experience. With regard to the appointments of Superintendents of Exchanges, I hope to receive recommendations from the Selection Committee during the coming month. The salaries attaching to these posts were given in a reply to the hon. Member for Bradford West on 21st September last.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether appointments to the higher positions have not been made by the right hon. Gentleman himself?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, yes. I made some appointments.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I propose to publish a complete batch of the names in order that the whole of the appointments and the character of the staff may be seen.

  Suffolk County Council (Small Holdings).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether he can now state what action the Suffolk County Council have taken to supply land, under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, to approved applicants at Walberswick; whether his attention has been directed to the case of one man whose application has been rejected on the ground that he is not of the working class; and if he is aware that this statement is denied by the applicant in question?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: There are no approved applicants for small holdings at Walberswick, and so far as we are aware no applicant was refused for the reason mentioned. If, however, my hon. Friend will supply me with any information in support of his statement I shall be very glad to have inquiry made into the matter.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked what steps are being taken by the Suffolk County Council to supply land to approved applicants at Wenhaston; if suitable land is available, the only objection being that the rent asked is excessive; and, if so, whether it is proposed to take compulsory powers to acquire the land?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The county council have obtained the offer of a farm of 90 acres to supply the two approved applications at Wenhaston. One of the applicants is willing to take about 23 acres of this land, but the other refuses to take any of it at the rent required. There would appear to be no need for the exercise of compulsory powers in this case, but the matter is to be further considered by the small holdings committee.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Argentine).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked whether, as a result of recent communications passing between the two countries, satisfactory assurances have been received from the Argentine Government regarding the freedom of that country from foot-and-mouth disease; and, if so, whether it is intended, or in contemplation, to remove the existing restrictions upon the importation into the Deptford cattle market and other foreign animal wharves of live cattle for slaughter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board have received assurances that the Argentine Republic is free from foot-and-mouth disease at the present moment. The Board propose to consider fully the advisability of modifying the existing restrictions, but before doing so require further information, which the Foreign Office have been requested to obtain from the Argentine Government.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: May I take it that if the assurances given to the Government are satisfactory the Government will be prepared to remove the restrictions?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I cannot answer that hypothetical question of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. WATT: Will the hon. Member introduce legislation next Session dealing with this question1?

  Enclosure of Common Land.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked whether an application has been received from the Doncaster Common Preservation Society for a copy of the Report made by the Board's Commissioner on a recent local
  484
  inquiry into an enclosure of common land; whether such request has been acceded to; and, if not, will he state the reasons for the refusal?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, we received the application mentioned and declined to accede to it on the ground that the Report in question was confidential.

  Tenant Farmers (Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906).
  Mr. MORTONasked whether the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906, which came into force on 1st January, 1909, is now in active operation; whether the Act has done anything to protect the tenant farmer; and whether any steps have been taken to make it generally known among tenant farmers that the Act is now in force?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We have issued a leaflet calling attention to the provisions of this Act, and I shall be pleased to send my hon. Friend a copy of it. The Act came into operation in January last, and it is at present too early to estimate the extent to which farmers are likely to avail themselves of its provisions.

  Training of Children (Highland Crofting Counties).
  Mr. MORTON (for Mr. Weir)asked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that a committee was appointed last year to consider the question of employment and training of boys and girls in the Highland crofting counties, will he state whether he has yet received a Report on the subject and his decision thereon; and is it proposed to continue the training schemes which have been in force for some years under the direction of the Congested Districts Board?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The Report has been received, and is at present under the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland.

  Sectarian Disturbances (Motherwell).
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGHasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the character of the speech delivered by Bailie Ferguson, at Motherwell Town Hall, on Wednesday, the 24th ultimo, with reference to sectarian disturbances there; whether he proposes to take steps with a view to having this bailie prosecuted and declared incapable of exercising magisterial functions; whether Bailie Ferguson has himself been imprisoned on a criminal charge; and

  485
  whether the attention of the Court of Session has been directed to the speech of a local solicitor who also attacked the sheriff at the same meeting?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): My attention has been directed to a speech delivered by Bailie Ferguson in Motherwell Town Hall on 27th of November. I have ascertained that no meeting of the character indicated took place on 24th November. I am at present considering certain questions which have been brought under my notice in regard to this meeting, and meantime I must refrain from making any further statement regarding them. My information is that Bailie Ferguson was imprisoned on a criminal charge. The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is in the negative.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Court of Sessions will be directed to the speech of the solicitor in view of 0the fact that he was guilty of contempt of Court?
  Mr. URE: That I cannot say.

  Unemployed Workmen Act (Distress Committees).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Lord Advocate if he is yet in a position to allocate the moneys granted for the purposes of the Distress Committees under the Unemployed Workmen Act; if so, will he state what sums have been granted to the committees; if he is aware of the distress existing and arising out of unemployment in Glasgow and district; and, if so, if he can state to the House what steps are being taken to lessen it?
  Mr. URE: Claims for participation in the Parliamentary grant have been received by the Local Government Board for Scotland from the Distress Committees of Edinburgh and Glasgow only, and grants have been given of £5,758 to Glasgow and £1,000 to Edinburgh. I am aware that distress due to want of employment still exists in Glasgow and the surrounding districts, with which the Distress Committee is doing its best to cope.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much the Glasgow Distress Committee have expended more than they received?
  Mr. URE: I suppose the hon. Member refers to the summer. On the work undertaken by the Distress Committee between the 12th July and the 17th September I understand upwards of £3,000 was spent.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: May I ask, in view of the decision of the Court of Sessions regarding the dispute between the Distress Committee and the town council, and seeing that the town council cannot now make a grant, whether the £1,000 allotted in any way met the requirements?
  Mr. URE: The Government would require consideration of the question whether or not the grant could be used to pay travelling expenses.
  Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the money borrowed by the Distress Committee on the strength of the Lord Advocate's guarantee has been repaid to them?
  Mr. URE: I gave no guarantee, but I offered certain assurances with which the hon. Member is acquainted. The question is now under the consideration of the Government.

  Barvas (Island of Lewis) (Sanitary Conditions).
  Mr. MORTON (on behalf of Mr. Weir)asked the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the recently issued Report of the Poor Law Commission, Scotland, calls attention to the evidence of Dr. Ross, Poor Law medical officer and local medical officer of health for the parish of Barvas, island of Lewis, condemning the conditions under which the people live in the parish of Barvas; if he is aware that the Committee add that these conditions, as described by Dr. Ross, are corroborated by Dr. Dittmar, medical inspector for the Local Government Board for Scotland, and by Mr. Millar, one of the Board's general superintendents, and that members of the Committee, having themselves visited the outer islands, have found these conditions to prevail, not only in the parish of Barvas, but also in other parishes; and, seeing that local authorities are unable to cope with the difficulty for lack of means, will he consider the expediency of approaching the Treasury with a view to secure a grant such as will admit of these townships being placed in a suitable sanitary condition, especially bearing in mind that the Committee state that they are convinced that the problem in the Outer Hebrides is largely a public health problem, and that without outside pecuniary assistance it is scarcely possible that any adequate measures can be taken to improve the existing I conditions?
  Mr. URE: I am aware that the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws contains paragraphs in the sense indicated by the lion. Member's question. As I have already indicated this subject is receiving the earnest consideration of the Government.

  British Indians (Transvaal).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the fact that meetings have been and are being held at various centres in the Indian Empire in protest against the treatment of British Indians in the Transvaal; and whether, in view of the fact that the treatment of those, there, and the deportation of those who have been expelled, is responsible for much Indian disquiet, the Government of India will take any steps, such as the prohibition of further indentured Indian labour to South Africa, by way of protest against such treatment of British subjects?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The Secretary of State is aware of the meetings referred to, and the subject is one that receives the constant attention both of the Secretary of State and of the Government of India, but the Secretary of State is unable at present to make any statement as to the future policy of the Government of India in the matter. I might point out to my hon. Friend that no indentured labour is furnished to the Transvaal by the Government of India.

  Assistant Surgeons (India).
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Under-Secretary for India whether his attention has been called to a notification in the "United Provinces Gazette," over the signature of the officiating Inspector-General of Civil Hospitals, republic competitive examinations to be held in December for the post of assistant surgeon, that only Europeans and Eurasians are eligible; and whether, in view of the proclamations of Queen Victoria and King Edward VII., the Secretary of State has refused his sanction?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The assistant surgeons referred to in the notification in the "United Provinces Gazette" are required for duty in station hospitals with British troops, and for this reason the, appointments have, always been confined to Europeans or Eurasians. For corresponding appointments with native
  488
  troops only natives of India are eligible. The question whether any revision of the constitution of the Indian Subordinate Medical Department, or of the scope of its employment is advisable, has been referred to the Government of India in accordance with the statement made in reply to a question by the hon. Member for North Galway on 24th September last.

  Evicted Tenants (Reinstatement).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps, if any, will be taken by the Estates Commissioners to secure the reinstatement of the representative of the late Michael O'Sullivan in his holding at Dooks, county Kerry?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners have carefully considered the application of this man's daughter, and have decided to take no action in the matter.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. Thomas F. Smyth)asked when the Estates Commissioners will have houses built, or give grants for the same, for the evicted tenants who have been reinstated on their holdings at Stroke, Ballinamore, county Leitrim, on the Marsham estate, as the houses in which some of those tenants at present reside are entirely unfit for human habitation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that one of their inspectors is arranging for the expenditure of the sums sanctioned for buildings in this case.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. Thomas F. Smyth)asked if the Estates Commissioners will reconsider the case of Hugh Fox, Lissicairn, Ballinamore, county Leitrim, with a view either of restoring to him the portion of land from which he was evicted on the Harbison-Maguire estate, or else giving him compensation in lieu of it, so as to avoid any further friction in the district, and particularly as all the other evicted tenants in the locality have been reinstated?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have decided not to take any action on Hugh Fox's application for restoration to two acres of his former holding, which comprised 22 acres. He has already been reinstated in the remaining 20 acres. The two acres in question are in the occupation of another tenant.

  Mr. Ruthven's Estate (County Leitrim).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. Thomas F. Smyth)asked on what terms the Irish Land Commission are prepared to sell the estate of the late W. B. C. Ruthven, situate in the Mohill rural district, county Leitrim, to the tenants; and if the sale will be carried out soon, particularly as the Land Commission, who hold a mortgage on the estate, decreed several of the tenants at the October quarter sessions for arrears of rent due?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Land Commission have only recently been able to take the final steps necessary to put them in a legal position to deal with this estate, and are now quite prepared to consider offers from the tenants for its purchase.

  Mr. W. P. Lambert's Estate (Athenry).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (on behalf of Mr. Duffy)asked whether an advance has been made for the purchase of houses in McDonald's-lane, in the town of Athenry, on the estate of W. P. Lambert, to Thomas Kennedy and Edward Brady; and what has been the advance sanctioned in each case.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have sanctioned an advance of £8 to Brady, but none to Kennedy, who is paying cash.

  Rodney Estate (Athenry).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. Duffy)asked why, when valuing the houses in occupation of the tenants on the Rodney estate, Athenry, the Estates Commissioners have refused to recommend advances for the purchase of the houses which they occupy to John Whyte, Barrack-lane, Michael Barrett, Bridge-street, and Martin Headd, of Bridge-street, while the houses in question are superior to the houses in the occupation of Edward Brady and Thomas Kennedy on the Lambert property?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners cannot identify any of the persons named as tenants on the Rodney Estate which has not yet been acquired by them.

  Johanna Hayes, Athenry (Accommodation Land).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. Duffy)asked what reasons the Estates Commissioners assign for giving a plot of accommodation land to Johanna Hayes, district nurse, Athenry, and refusing to give any accommodation land to Patrick
  490
  Fox, Church-street, a man with eight in family, and Christy Daly, of Northgate-street, with six in family, whereas Messrs. Daly and Fox purchased their houses and the district nurse has not purchased the house which she occupies?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The allotment referred to was made by the Estates Commissioners in the exercise of their discretion. The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension in stating that Fox and Daly have purchased their holdings in the town of Athenry.

  Closing of Public-houses (Portadown).
  Mr. J. B. LONSDALE (for Mr. Moore)asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that the justices of Portadown made an order directing that the public-houses should be closed on 28th August in the Portadown urban district; if he is aware that several gentlemen of repute, including three Methodist clergymen, in recent proceedings in Portadown swore that this order was in many instances openly disobeyed by Nationalist publicans; if the police in such proceedings called no witnesses to support the testimony of the clergymen and made no effort to find them in support of a prosecution for breaches of the above order, although such breaches took place in broad daylight and in the presence of different constables other than the head constable; whether County Inspector Ball originally opposed the making of such order, and if this was the reason that the Irish Government took no steps to enforce it; and what action the Government intend to take in the matter, having regard to their publicly expressed policy on the temperance question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the constabulary authorities that the magistrates at Portadown made an order closing the public-houses in the town on 28th August, and that three Methodist clergymen made statements to the effect that in one case the order was disobeyed. Proceedings were taken against the publican, and the police did all they could to obtain evidence in addition to that of the clergymen, but without success. No breaches of the order took place in the presence of the police, and if the order was broken without their knowledge it is due to the fact that they were fully occupied in preventing rioting, in which they were happily successful. Mr. Ball, at the request of the magistrates, attended their meeting, and expressed the opinion that there were not

  491
  sufficient grounds for making the closing order, but this in no way affected the action of the police. The case against the publican has been dismissed by the magistrates, and no further action appears to be required.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (on behalf of Mr. Power)asked on what grounds has John Fennell, Blantis, Ballinamult, county Waterford, been deprived of his old age pension; seeing the unreliability of the Census Returns, what steps does the Local Government Board take to ascertain ages of applicants; and when no documentary evidence as to age can be procured, does the Local Government Board take local evidence on the subject, or does it reject all cases where no documentary evidence can be procured, or where the name does not appear in the Census of 1841?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board confirmed the decision of the local pension sub-committee disallowing the claim of John Fennell on the ground that he had failed to prove that he had reached the statutory age. The Board are always ready to consider any evidence as to age which claimants or pensioners can lay before them.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (on behalf of Mr. Duffy)asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that William Shaughnessy, of Church-street, Athenry, was twice awarded a pension of 5s. a week by the sub-committee in Loughrea; whether he is aware this old man is an invalid and confined to his room for over a dozen years; that all his family, with the exception of one boy, were obliged to emigrate to America, and that this boy is in bad health and absolutely unable to render any help to his father; whether he is aware that Shaughnessy's sole and whole means of maintenance comes from a rough and useless mountainous holding at a rent of £10 a year, which carries two yearling cattle and one calf, bringing him in not more than 4s. or 5s. a week; and, having regard to all the circumstances of this case, if he will communicate with the Local Government Board and see that this applicant is awarded a pension?
  Mr. BIRRELL: William Shaughnessy appealed against the decision of the pension sub-committee allowing him a pension of only 1s. a week, but the Local Government Board disallowed the pension. The pension officer has recently appealed
  492
  against the decision of the committee on a further claim by Shaughnessy, granting him a pension of 5s. a week, and the Board are at present making inquiries into the means and age of the claimant.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. P. White)asked the Chief Secretary whether he will state the reason why James Beggy, Orristown, Kells, county Meath, was disqualified for an old age pension?
  Mr. BIRRELL.The pension in this case was disallowed by the Local Government-Board on the ground that Beggy's means exceeded the statutory limit.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. Duffy)asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Martin Connolly, of New Sunnagh, Loughrea, applied for and was awarded a pension of 5s. a week by the Loughrea sub-committee; whether he is aware that this man's holding is rented at £1 16s. 6d. yearly, and that his mountain holding is grazed in common by sons who are working mechanics and living away from their father's home; whether he is aware that his entire stock consists of a cow, calf, yearling, and a little tillage, with some money in bank intended for the settlement of his two daughters; and whether, in view of the fact that this aged veteran has no more than 3s. a week coming in to him from all sources, he will call the attention of the Local Government Board to his application so as to bring him the assistance he is entitled to in his old age?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The claimant has made statements to the effect indicated in the question. His case is at present under the consideration of the Local Government Board, and inquiries are being made as to his circumstances.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that Michael Kelly, of Clontyclay, county Armagh, has been refused an old age pension on appeal by the Local Government Board for Ireland on the ground that, he had received poor relief; whether he is aware that Kelly was twice granted a pension by the Armagh Rural (North) Pension Sub-Committee after careful investigation of the case; whether he is aware that Kelly, who never applied for poor relief, was sent to the Armagh workhouse infirmary by the dispensary medical officer for medical treatment and was located in the infirm ward of the workhouse simply because of the temporarily con-

  493
  gested state of suitable infirmary wards, and left the institution as soon as he was well enough to do so; whether this case differs in any essential particular from the case of Andrew Jenkins, which was before the Local Government Board in March last, and to whom the Local Government Board allowed a pension on 8th April, 1909; and whether he will, in the circumstances, remove the disqualification in the case of Michael Kelly?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The statements made by the hon. Member in regard to this case are now being made the subject of local inquiry by the Local Government Board, and if the facts are as alleged, a claim for pension will be favourably considered. The case is not the same as that of Andrew Jenkins as there was no question in that case of chronic infirmity, the patient having been admitted to the workhouse suffering from influenza.
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of issuing some Memorandum or Return for the information of old age pension committees, summarising the various decisions given in doubtful cases in Ireland under the Old Age Pensions Act similar to the Circular issued by the Local Government Board in England?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board for Ireland issued circulars on 15th and 30th December last corresponding to those issued by the Local Government Board for Engalnd on 11th December and 16th April last, to which the hon. Member presumably refers. I am sending copies of the Irish circulars to the hon. Member.
  Mr. HUGH LAW: Would it be possible to have them in the form of a Parliamentary Paper?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will consider that.

  Irish Constabulary (Athenry Meeting).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. Duffy)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the hon. Members for East and South Galway attended a meeting in Athenry on Sunday, 21st November, and that the object of the meeting was perfectly peaceable and lawful, it being to welcome home from prison two gentlemen who had been released that day; will he explain how many policemen were brought into the parish and lined along the street of the town on the occasion; and what was the cause of this display?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The two men referred to in the question had just been released from prison after undergoing a sentence of 14 months' hard labour for having formed part of a band of armed and disguised men who made a murderous attack on a police patrol. Twenty extra police were brought into Athenry on the occasion to preserve the peace and prevent intimidation. The attitude of the crowd towards persons who had incurred their displeasure afforded abundant evidence of the necessity for the presence of this force.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. Duffy)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many policemen are at present stationed in the village of Athenry and the police huts adjacent to the village; is he aware that the presence of so many policemen in the town where everything is at present quiet and law-abiding is a menace to the public peace and calculated to exasperate the people into acts of violence and disturbance; and whether, seeing that a general all-round settlement has taken place on practically all the estates surrounding the town, he will take steps to reduce the police stationed there to its normal level?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There are at present 31 police in Athenry and 18 in the neighbouring police huts, and I am advised by the responsible police authorities that this force is absolutely necessary for the preservation of the peace and to prevent acts of violence and intimidation. I regret to say that the people of the town cannot all be described at present as quiet or law-abiding, and there are, unhappily, several estates in the neighbourhood on which no settlement has been reached.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary whether he can say what payments have been made to the trustees of the Kilmorey estate, county Down; whether the total purchase price has been paid; if so, whether he can explain why a demand has been made upon the tenant proprietors for the payment of interest this month at the rate of 3½ per cent., whereas the interest authorised by the Land Act is only 3¼ per cent, on land vested in the Land Commission; whether the sums demanded have in some cases exceeded even 3½ per cent.; and whether the demand forms will be recalled?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate has been sold to the Estates Commissioners under

  495
  Section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the purchase money, amounting to £194,155, has been advanced. Section 18 of the Act provides that the interest in lieu of rent payable by the tenants to the Land Commission in cases of this kind shall be at a rate not less than 3½ per cent, per annum, and in their undertakings to purchase their holdings from the Commissioners the tenants have contracted to pay interest at 3½ per cent, until the lands are vested in them on resale, which will be completed as soon as practicable. The interest which is being collected from the tenants does not exceed 3½ per cent., as stated in the question, but the sum payable for the half-year ending 1st November is slightly an excess of the amount payable for the previous half-year owing to there being more days in the half-year.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the cause of the delay in the purchase of this estate in view of the fact that the purchase money has been paid to the landlord.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Delay in these matters frequently occurs for reasons over which nobody has any control. I am not able to answer the hon. Member's question now, but I will make inquiries.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any assurance that this matter is being pushed forward?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Oh! Yes it is.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. Flynn)asked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any further steps towards the acquisition of the untenanted grazing ranches on the Fuge estate, Garryduff, and Templemary, county Cork; and whether, in view of the number of deserving evicted tenants looking for suitable holdings under the provisions of the Land Acts, 1903–7, the Commissioners will take immediate action with a view to acquiring this available untenanted land?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have had a preliminary inspection made of the lands of Templemary, and have intimated to the owner the price they would be prepared to advance if formal proceedings for sale were instituted tinder the Irish Land Act, 1903. The owner is not willing to sell at the price. The Commissioners have published a notice in the "Dublin Gazette" of their intention to
  496
  acquire the lands of Garryduff under the Evicted Tenants Act, and have made an offer, against which the owner has filed a petition, which has not yet been determined.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. Flynn)asked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any recent action in regard to purchase of the untenanted lands on the Leader estate, Dromagh, county Cork; and whether, in view of the demand for the settlement of non-provided evicted tenants, enlargement of uneconomic holdings, and allotments of land for labourers of the district, and of the fact that the sale of the tenanted portion of the estate has now been concluded, the Commissioners will make a further effort to secure this untenanted land under the provisions of the Land Acts, 1903 to 1907?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on my behalf to the question asked by him on the 13th September last, to which I have nothing at present to add.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (on behalf of Mr. Vincent Kennedy)asked the Chief Secretary if he can state whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any steps to acquire the lands of Ture, Slieve-brickan, Macken, Drumlane farm, and Stranadara, all being untenanted lands or ranches coming under the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable from the particulars given in the question to identify these lands as pending for sale before them. If the hon. Member will furnish the Commissioners with the names and addresses of the owners of the lands they will make further inquiries.

  Gubbins Estate, Bottomstown, Limerick.
  Mr. M. KEATING (on behalf of Mr. Lundon)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any steps recently with a view to the purchase of the untenanted land on the Gubbins estate at Bottoms-town, county Limerick; and, if not, will he urge on the Commissioners the necessity of doing so?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners instituted proceedings under the Evicted Tenants Act in this case, but the owner filed an objection, and the Commissioners have decided to discontinue the proceedings.

  Evicted Tenants, County Limerick.
  Mr. KEATING (on behalf of Mr. Lundon)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the number of evicted tenants in county Limerick whose claims have been accepted, and also the number of the same who have been reinstated since the passing of the 1903 Act?
  Mr. BIRR ELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that 135 evicted tenants or their representatives have been reinstated in county Limerick, and 25 others have been provisionally noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land.

  Land Act, 1903 (Advances in County Limerick).
  Mr. KEATING (on behalf of Mr. Lundon)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what amount of purchase money has been advanced in county Limerick under the Act of 1903; and what is the amount waiting to be dealt with under the same Act?
  Mr. BIRRELL: £1,931,493 has been advanced under the Irish Land Act, 1903, for the purchase of land in county Limerick, and advances applied for, but not yet made, amount to £3,251,018.

  Untenanted Land, County Limerick.
  Mr. KEATING (on behalf of Mr. Lundon)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state the amount of untenanted land purchased by the Estates Commissioners in county Limerick; and what are the names of the various owners, the area of the lands purchased, and the amount of purchase money agreed to in each case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have acquired 3,295 acres of untenanted land in the county of Limerick under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the purchase money thereof amounts to £58,573. The details asked for in the concluding portion of the question could not be given within the limits of an oral reply, but the hon. Member will find particulars of all estates and untenanted land sold in the Monthly Returns of Adances presented to Parliament.

  Alleged Illegal Supply of Drink (Belfast).
  Mr. T. L. CORBETTasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case in the Belfast summons court brought against P. J. Courtney, on 11th November, 1909, for illegally supply-
  498
  ing drink; whether he is aware that the I resident magistrate, Mr. Brady, commented adversely on the decision of the magistrates in dismissing the case; and whether the Government intend to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by Mr. Brady that this case was heard by him and several other magistrates. In announcing the decision of the court he reviewed the evidence, and stated his own opinion but did not comment on the views of the other magistrates. The case having been dismissed no further action can be taken in the matter.
  Mr. SLOAN: Does Mr. Brady object entirely to the verdict given by his brother magistrates on the bench, and, in view of the fact that this is a perfect scandal in Belfast, will the right hon. Gentleman take care that the bench will not be packed in this way in future?
  Mr. T. L. CORBETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the resident magistrate said, "I think it very regrettable that such a decision should be arrived at by the bench," and that the members on the bench at the moment were practically all appointed by the right hon. Gentleman's Government?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no knowledge who appointed the magistrates. Differences of opinion frequently occur between magistrates in various parts of the Kingdom.
  Mr. SLOAN: May I ask whether he is aware that this abuse was carried on long before the present Government came into power?

  Army Examinations.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the usual competitive examinations for entrance to the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, have been abandoned, and all candidates who pass the qualifying examination are to be admitted without further test; and, if so, what is the reason for this departure from the established practice?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): In the competitive examination that was to have been held this month the number of qualified candidates who applied for admission to the Royal Military Academy did not exceed the number of cadetships offered for competition, and the number of qualified candi-

  499
  dates who applied for admission to the Royal Military College was only slightly in excess of the number of cadetships offered for competition, and this number will probably be further reduced by medical rejections. It was accordingly considered unnecessary in the interests of both parents and candidates to hold the usual competitive examination. It must be remembered that the intake of cadets into the cadet colleges has recently been increased owing to the demand for regular officers for the Special Reserve and Territorial Force.
  Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say to what reason he attributes this sudden lack of desire on the part of young men to enter the Army?
  Mr. HALDANE: I will answer that. There is no lack of desire, but there is a lack of qualification. The standard of education for officers has risen in consequence of the progress in their duties, and the qualifying educational standard is a bar to a great many coming in. I am taking all the steps I can to meet the difficulties, because the one thing I am anxious about is not to lower the standard of the education of officers in the Army.
  Mr. LEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is making representations to the public schools with regard to their inability to supply candidates who comply with the qualification?
  Mr. HALDANE: I am not only making representations, but I am conferring with them myself, and it remains to be seen what comes of it.

  Soldiers in Mufti.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked the Secretary for War whether he is aware that the local regulations under which the privilege extended to non-commissioned officers and men of wearing plain clothes when on pass vary at different stations in the United Kingdom; and whether he can arrange, without detriment to the Service, to have the conditions under which this privilege is granted made uniform in all military districts?
  Mr. HALDANE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, who is granted full discretion in the matter, is necessarily the best judge as to what extent the privilege may be granted in any particular place.
  Mr. LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very frequently complaints are received from men in military districts when transferred that they are deprived of the privilege they enjoyed at other stations?
  Mr. HALDANE: I think that is less so than it was, but it still exists to some extent.

  Bubonic Plague in Mauritius.
  Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary for War whether he had any information as to the outbreak of bubonic plague in Mauritius; and, if so, whether he would give orders to prevent the landing of the troops—the 7th Fusiliers—who were now on their way there from the Cape?
  Mr. HALDANE: I only received notice of the question about 10 minutes ago. I have no personal knowledge, but I will make inquiry and inform the hon. Member. I have, however, no doubt that the Army medical authorities are fully alive to the necessity of taking precautions.

  Imprisoned Suffragettes.
  Mr. PHILIP SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary: (1) Are Mrs. Chapin and Miss Neilans, who were recently sent to prison for three months without the option of a fine, being forcibly fed? (2) Is the forcible feeding having any bad effect on their general health? and (3) in view of the political nature of their offence, and the statement of the prisoners that if they were treated as political prisoners they would obey all prison rules, will you recommend their removal to the first division?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Mrs. Chapin takes her food quietly. Miss Neilans has refused her food, and, as all attempts to persuade her to take it failed, the medical officer has had to feed her by tube. Her health is not suffering. I am sorry I cannot transfer them to the first division. It was for the judge to decide in what division they should be placed, and he ordered them to be in the second division, where they have the advantage of separation from ordinary criminals of the third division.

HOUSE OF LORDS AND FINANCE BILL.

  PRIME MINISTER'S NOTICE OF MOTION.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): In rising to move, as I do, "That the House do now adjourn," I have to say I

  501
  find, after consulting the authentic records of the proceedings of the other House that the Finance Bill passed by this House was last night refused a Second Beading by the House of Lords. I therefore give notice that at the earliest opportunity—which will be to-morrow—I shall move the following Resolution:—
  "That the action of the House of Lords in refusing to pass into law the financial provisions made by this House for the Service of the year is a breach of the Constitution and a usurpation of the rights of the Commons."
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned at Thirty minutes after Three p.m. until to-morrow (Thursday).

  Provincial Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists.
  Provincial Sorting Clerks and Telegraphists.
  London Postal Sub-District Offices.
  London Postal Sub-District Offices.
  Metropolitan Superintending Engineers' Offices.
  Metropolitan Superintending Engineers' Offices.
  Post Office Servants (Parliamentary Committee).
  Post Office Servants (Parliamentary Committee).
  South African Mail Service.
  South African Mail Service.
  Post Office Stores Department, Extra Duty Pay.
  Post Office Stores Department, Extra Duty Pay.
  Female Unestablished Service in the Post Office.
  Female Unestablished Service in the Post Office.
  Far East Mails (Siberian Route).
  Far East Mails (Siberian Route).
  Newspaper Postage Regulation.
  Newspaper Postage Regulation.
  Registration of Eastern Special Mail Bags.
  Registration of Eastern Special Mail Bags.
  Male Telegraph Learners.
  Male Telegraph Learners.
  Omagh Post Office Revision.
  Omagh Post Office Revision.
  Upper Baker-street (London) Postal Staff
  Upper Baker-street (London) Postal Staff
  Patent Medicines (Label of Ingredients).
  Patent Medicines (Label of Ingredients).
  Dispensing Poisons.
  Dispensing Poisons.
  Liverpool Sectarian Disturbances.
  Liverpool Sectarian Disturbances.
  Deductions for Unpunctuality.
  Deductions for Unpunctuality.
  Dependents of Unestablished Officials.
  Dependents of Unestablished Officials.
  Colour-Blindness (Marine Tests).
  Colour-Blindness (Marine Tests).
  Manufactured Articles Imported into Germany.
  Manufactured Articles Imported into Germany.
  Ennis and Kilrush Train Service.
  Ennis and Kilrush Train Service.
  Dinas Mawddy Railway, Montgomeryshire.
  Dinas Mawddy Railway, Montgomeryshire.
FINANCE BILL.
  DISCRIMATION IN INCREMENT DUTY.
  DISCRIMATION IN INCREMENT DUTY.
  Stamp Duties and Solicitors' Fees.
  Stamp Duties and Solicitors' Fees.
  Old Age Pensions, Ireland.
  Old Age Pensions, Ireland.
  Judicial Tenancies.
  Judicial Tenancies.
  Loss of Sight (Mr. G. Paine).
  Loss of Sight (Mr. G. Paine).
  Teachers' Superannuation Allowances.
  Teachers' Superannuation Allowances.
  Giggleswick Grammar School.
  Giggleswick Grammar School.
  Local Education Grants.
  Local Education Grants.
  Survey Department (India).
  Survey Department (India).
  Labour Restrictions in Bombay Mills.
  Labour Restrictions in Bombay Mills.
  Popular Rights in India.
  Popular Rights in India.
  Baraitch Dacoity Case.
  Baraitch Dacoity Case.
  Ordnance Survey Staff Salaries.
  Ordnance Survey Staff Salaries.
  Pedigree Stock and Tuberculin Test.
  Pedigree Stock and Tuberculin Test.
  South Eastern and Chatham Railway (Bridges).
  South Eastern and Chatham Railway (Bridges).
  Honours for Officers.
  Honours for Officers.
  British Post Offices in China.
  British Post Offices in China.
  Colonial Office Second Division Clerks.
  Colonial Office Second Division Clerks.
  Chinese in Transvaal Gold Mines.
  Chinese in Transvaal Gold Mines.
  Sleeping Sickness in Nyasaland.
  Sleeping Sickness in Nyasaland.
  Old Age Pension Disallowed, Tarleton.
  Old Age Pension Disallowed, Tarleton.
  Donnington Hospital, Iffley.
  Donnington Hospital, Iffley.
  Irish Agricultural Colleges.
  Irish Agricultural Colleges.
  Irish Civil Government (Cost).
  Irish Civil Government (Cost).
  Agricultural Work, Ireland.
  Agricultural Work, Ireland.
  Untenanted Land, County Westmeath.
  Untenanted Land, County Westmeath.
  Chapman Estate, Westmeath.
  Chapman Estate, Westmeath.
  Athenry Petty Sessions District (Religion of Magistrates).
  Athenry Petty Sessions District (Religion of Magistrates).
  Land Purchase, County Longford Estates.
  Land Purchase, County Longford Estates.
  Tenant Purchasers' Annuities (Deductions from County Grants).
  Tenant Purchasers' Annuities (Deductions from County Grants).
  Deerpark (Longford) Evicted Farm.
  Deerpark (Longford) Evicted Farm.
  Extra Police in Longford.
  Extra Police in Longford.
  Evicted Families, Ireland.
  Evicted Families, Ireland.
  Knox Estate, Sligo.
  Knox Estate, Sligo.
  Petty Sessions Clerk, Cork.
  Petty Sessions Clerk, Cork.
  School Teachers, Ireland (Fees for Mathematics).
  School Teachers, Ireland (Fees for Mathematics).
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order), and suspended for this day's sitting.

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVE MENT FUNDS BILL.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, read.
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Earl Carrington, who is, I am sorry to say, unwell, I beg leave to move that the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments to this Bill be considered.
Moved, That the said Amendments be considered.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, before we proceed to deal seriatim with the Amendments, I should like to offer one or two observations upon the situation with which your Lordships' House finds itself confronted at this moment. Not many hours ago—to be precise, at about half past eleven o'clock last night—the noble Earl who leads the House was deploring in grave words what he described as the indiscriminate hostility of your Lordships to measures put forward by His Majesty's Government, and he dwelt particularly upon what he termed the increasing encroachment of Conservative Peers in their attitude towards Bills presented to the House by Liberal Administrations. There is, I venture to think, another side to the picture, and that other side is presented to us in a somewhat striking fashion by the Motion which will shortly be made by the noble Earl.
My Lords, in the case of this Bill no one can say that there was any approach to indiscriminate hostility on the part of this House. We approached it, endeavouring to exercise our proper functions as a Chamber of revision, in no spirit of hostility, but with a genuine desire to make it a better
1348
and more efficient measure. The noble Earl referred last night to my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, and spoke of his high position as a Parliamentarian. The noble Earl will recollect that no member of your Lordships' House took a more conspicuous part in the discussion of this Bill than Lord St. Aldwyn. It is, I think, rather fortunate that your Lordships' House did revise the Bill, for it came up to this House in a state which showed that it required a great deal of revision. When the Bill came to us it contained no provisions for public notices or for the issue of advertisement in the locality. It contained no provision for enabling notices to be served upon owners or occupiers, or public bodies; so that it really came to this, that when the Bill was laid on the Table, it would have been perfectly open for any persons or for any body to whom an advance had been made to make an application by word of mouth to the Development Commissioners in camera, and then and there to obtain from them an order for the compulsory acquisition of any property which might be desired without the owners of that property or the persons interested in it being supplied with any kind of notice or warning.
There was another blot in the Bill which we were able to cure. In the case of Scotland, the treatment was entirely different—unintentionally, no doubt—from the treatment in the case of England. Your Lordships' House corrected these mistakes and corrected other imperfections in the Bill and we also introduced a certain number of Amendments, perfectly legitimate Amendments, which we defended in debate and which were not very seriously taken exception to. Now, my Lords, what is it that we find? We find virtually the whole of these Amendments disagreed with by the House of Commons, and disagreed with, with one or two exceptions, upon the ground that they are contrary to the privilege of the House of Commons. That really discloses a very serious state of things. I notice that in the printed Reasons for disagreeing which have been circulated three different formulas are used. The Amendments are objected to either because they involve an alteration of the persons to whom the advance is made, or because they involve an alteration of the purposes for which the advance is made, or because they involve an alteration of the conditions upon which the advance is made. Of course, the whole object of this Bill is to enable advances

1349
to be made for certain purposes of economic development and for making roads, so that your Lordships will see that if we are not allowed to touch either the person to whom the advance is made, or the purpose for which the advance can be made, or the conditions under which the advance is made, we are virtually told that we must not touch a line of this Bill. It is a plain intimation to us to keep our "Hands off this Bill," and that, my Lords, I venture to characterise as an extreme and unwarrantable exercise of the House of Commons privilege.
My Lords, I do not think that any one will get up in this House and suggest that this is a Money Bill. There never was a Bill that could less properly be so described. I have more than once ventured to address this House on the question of privilege. We have to remember that there are two points: first, whether an Amendment made by us touches the House of Commons privilege at all—that is a question for the officers of the House of Commons to decide in the first instance—and the other question is, assuming that there has been an encroachment upon the privilege of the House of Commons, whether that House should insist upon its privilege. And when I say whether that House should insist on its privilege, of course what that comes to is whether the Government of the day which has a large majority behind it should advise the House to insist upon its privilege or not. It would be of course, most improper for me to say anything with regard to the manner in which the high officers of the House of Commons think proper to deal with matters of privilege. I may, however, be allowed to say that so far as I am able to judge from the precedents which are familiar to us, the tendency is to insist more strictly than of old upon the extreme right of the House of Commons. But what I do want to call attention to is the manner in which in these days the Government jumps at every hint from the Speaker that the question of privilege is involved.
May I call your Lordships' attention to what seems to me to be a very striking illustration of what I am saying. Here is the report of the Speaker's observations upon an Amendment made by your Lordships' House to Clause 8. Your Lordships added words enabling the Road Board to make advances to county councils inter alia towards meeting the extraordinary
1350
expenditure incurred by highway authorities on the maintenance of roads in consequence of motor traffic. Mr. Speaker observed, on this question of privilege—
"I have had some doubts with regard to this particular Amendment. I agree with the noble Lord—Lord Robert Cecil—that it is undesirable to press a question of privilege too far. It is possible that in a case of this sort the proper maintenance of the road is to keep it in a proper state of repair. I can understand that the best way to improve the road is to fill up the holes that are to be found in it, though that may technically not be a general act of improvement. I did not wish to smell out, so to speak, these breaches of privilege in order to raise meticulous objections to Amendments."
These are pretty strong words from the Speaker. My Lords, in spite of that pretty broad hint from the Chair, the Amendment was disagreed with, and it is disagreed with, as stated in the Paper now in your Lordships' hands, upon the ground that it is an encroachment upon the privilege of the House of Commons. Could your Lordships have any stronger example than that?
I should like very much, if your Lordships will bear with me for a moment, to contrast the action of His Majesty's Government in dealing with this important question with the action of other Liberal Statesmen in the House of Commons. The question of privilege was raised at the time when Mr. Abercromby, afterwards Lord Dunfermline, was Speaker of the House of Commons on the question of the Irish Poor Relief Bill in the year 1838. The Speaker then began by saying that he considered the Amendments to be an infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons; but he went on—
"As the Bill was one of a very peculiar character affecting not only the proprietors of land but the great mass of the people of Ireland, and as the principle of rating was necessarily incidental to such a measure, he considered that if the privileges of this House were strictly pressed in such a case, they would almost tend to prevent the House of Peers from taking such a measure into its consideration in a way that might be on all grounds advisable."
If you attempt to deal with the question of privilege in this way that is what will happen; it will altogether prevent the Peers from taking measures into their consideration. Upon that, Lord John Russell, expressing agreement with the Speaker, used these words—
"In cases of Bills of this description, in which taxation was not the sole but rather an incidental object, any latitude consistent with the due

1351
observance of the privileges of this House should be allowed to the House of Lords in their legislative functions. He hoped, therefore, that the House would enter upon the consideration of these Amendments, which were, doubtless, framed with the view rather of forwarding the objects of the Bill than otherwise,"
a description which fairly applies to our Amendments on this Bill. Then later on, in the case of another Irish Bill, Lord John Russell used these words—
"I should be disposed to inquire, in the first place, whether they do not come within the general principle of those cases in which the House has consented to waive its privileges; and, secondly, whether it is expedient upon the whole that we should waive our privileges in the present instance,"
and he added—
"It is a case in which, to use an expression of Lord Dunfermline, we might, by pressing our privileges, rather weaken than strengthen them."
My Lords, the only other quotation with which I will trouble you is again from a speech made by Lord John Russell in 1849, in which he spoke as follows—
"With regard to legislation in reference to the condition of the poor, it must be acknowledged by all to be a subject of very great importance and one concerning which both Houses of Parliament should be entitled to give an opinion. I think legislation is likely to proceed more harmoniously between the two Houses of Parliament if we do not assert our privileges on an occasion of that kind."
Now, my Lords, if, instead of the words "the condition of the poor," that passage were to be read thus, "With regard to legislation in reference to the economic development of the country," would not the principle, suggested by Lord John Russell apply with equal force to the case now before your Lordships' House?
I have dwelt at some little length upon this question because it does seem to me to be one of the most extreme importance, and I really have risen at the beginning of this discussion because I think it might be for your Lordships' convenience if, before proceeding further, we obtain from the noble Earl some statement to indicate whether it is his intention and that of his colleagues to persist in debarring this House from any discussion of these different Amendments upon these what I should call purely technical grounds. I do not know—the noble Earl may be able to tell us—what prospects there are of any objection which we may be able to raise on this side of the House receiving any consideration at all from His Majesty's Government.
1352
Is the noble Earl asking us to begin with reference to this Bill a mere parade movement, or are we to be allowed to discuss these Amendments upon their merits? My Lords, I do not know whether, considering the atmospheric conditions which prevail at this moment, there is much prospect of our obtaining a hearing in regard to such a question as this. If that is so, then it will be for your Lordships to consider whether there is anything to be gained by the full and careful discussion which these Amendments no doubt in ordinary circumstances would receive. If the noble Earl tells us that what we have to say is not likely to be considered, then I think the House will have to decide whether it desires to persist in its Amendments and take the consequences, or whether, as the Bill is one to which we do not in principle object, we prefer that it should pass into law even without the removal of those blots which we detected in it. But, my Lords, whatever may be the result, I desire to enter my emphatic protest against the manner in which the House of Commons privilege has been made use of, not by the officers of the House, but by the Ministers who control the great majority of the House in order to deny to us the proper opportunity of discussing matters which we were thoroughly entitled to discuss. The noble Earl has told us that we are on the eve of a grave controversy in regard to the relations between the two Houses, and I venture to say that, if such a controversy is indeed to take place, it will be necessary to put in the very forefront of it that question of privilege which I have been endeavouring to discuss—a question which, in my view, deserves the earnest attention of all Parliamentary reformers.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, the noble Marquess has stated with his invariable clearness and with perfect fairness the condition of things as it has obtained in the House of Commons on the matter of privilege with regard to this particular Bill. The noble Marquess drew a very just distinction, which I have attempted to draw on some previous occasions, between the action of the officers of the other House with regard to this matter of privilege and the possible action of the Government of the day in moving that privilege should be

1353
waived. I have always, however, endeavoured also to point out that, so far as the position of your Lordships' House in the Constitution is concerned, it is the first point, which is the important one—the fact that the officers of the other House may draw attention to a breach of privilege in a particular instance. Whether that privilege should be waived by the House of Commons depends, as it seems to me, on an entirely different matter, namely, on the merits of the particular proposals embodied in the Amendments which your Lordships have made and sent down to another place.
Those two things are entirely different, and, speaking generally, I am very far from saying that there may not be on a great number of Bills occasions when the House of Commons on the merits ought to waive its privilege, and ought to agree to your Lordships' Amendments as constituting improvements in a particular Bill. I am quite prepared to lay that down as a general proposition, and I should imagine that, if in years to come your Lordships exercise that function of revision, and, if you like, improvement in the particulars of Bills, some of those improvements may infringe the privileges of another place, and undoubtedly in such a case the House of Commons would be wise not to insist on its privilege.
As regards this particular Bill and the question which the noble Marquess put to me at the end of his speech, the position is, of course, a somewhat peculiar one. This Bill is now in the position of a motorcar which is a well-built and well-designed machine, but which has to remain for an indefinite time in its garage because there is no petrol with which to bring it out into the road. This Bill is, of course, as it stands unworkable, because there is no provision for any funds to work it. In those circumstances the question does undoubtedly arise whether it is of immediate importance that it should become law. His Majesty's Government cannot pretend in the circumstances which have taken place to attach at all the same importance to the Bill's becoming law as they would if your Lordships had not taken the action you have with regard to the Supply of the year. I do not think it is likely—for I will be quite frank with the noble Marquess—that a further interchange of views between the two Houses on this
1354
subject would in the present conditions lead to any useful result. The insistence in another place on their privilege has undoubtedly been marked in this case and in all the circumstances I cannot profess to be altogether surprised at it.
So far as one is able to judge, looking back over history, there have been some periods when the House of Commons has been more disposed to insist upon its privileges than in others, partly perhaps owing to the somewhat stricter view taken by the officers of the House for the time being, and partly owing to such circumstances as those in which we are at this moment. I agree that the House of Commons is now, so far as I am able to judge, disposed to insist somewhat strongly upon its privileges, and I admit that the proof of that can be found in the manner in which they have dealt with these particular Amendments. I have stated what I believe the position to be, and I have also stated my view to a certain extent on the general question as between the two Houses; and it now really lies with the House to decide whether, after what I have stated, it desires to take the Amendments one by one, or whether it will take the course which I rather gathered from the noble Marquess, it might be disposed to take—that is to say, of insisting on the Amendments made at the previous stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl who leads the House was evidently hard put to it to defend the assertion of privilege of the other House of Parliament which he was obliged to undertake. I was astonished that he could find nothing better to say, if he will allow me to put it so, than that the officers of the other House were to be supreme in this matter, and that if they held that any particular subject was a breach of privilege then it was a breach of privilege and the question whether the House of Commons chose to waive that privilege was a secondary matter which it was entirely within their competence to decide one way of the other. Undoubtedly the decision of the House of Commons on a matter of privilege is subject to the control of that House and is final in that House, but we can never admit, and never ought to admit, that the authority of the officers of the other House of Parliament in any way binds your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF CREWE: May I interrupt

1355
the noble Marquess to ask for information, as he has been in the House of Commons, and no doubt knows more about this matter than I do. Have there ever been cases in which the House of Commons has against the opinion of its officers, declared that the privileges of the House had not been infringed?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I am unable to answer that question. I ought first to say that the noble Earl does me a great honour in putting the question to me, but I cannot pretend to be an authority on the procedure of the other House, although I sat in it for seventeen years. As the noble Earl knows, the proceedings in that House are very elaborate and intricate and it is difficult to lay down a definite opinion on any particular point. But I would say with some confidence that the officers of the other House, and even the supreme officer, although he occupies a position of unique importance in the Constitution, are only the servants of the House, as the Speaker often finds occasion to say. The authority of the House of Commons in matters of privilege is vested in the House of Commons itself. Of course, a decision of Mr. Speaker is not only of enormous influence in the House of Commons, but is of great weight wherever his words penetrate; but, speaking of a matter of jurisdiction, we must, with the greatest respect to the Speaker of the other House of Parliament, enter a most emphatic protest against the idea that his decisions, with whatever respect we may regard them, in any way bind your Lordships' House. Each House, as the noble Earl himself is aware, is the supreme judge of its own privileges, and there is no appeal except to the country beyond.
This case presents a very singular feature. The noble Earl asked me whether there had ever been a case where the House of Commons declared a thing not to be a breach of privilege which the Speaker had declared to be so. I am certainly not able to give him any such case, but this particular instance of the Bill under discussion presents a case somewhat analogous to that, inasmuch as it is a case in which the Speaker has not declared the thing to be a breach of privilege, has indeed almost declined to declare it a breach of privilege, and the House has reversed his decision and said it was a breach of privilege. That is one of the things we have to discuss this afternoon.
1356
Here is actually a case in which, when the Speaker is appealed to and asked whether it is a breach of privilege, his answer was that he had doubts about it and was not able to state definitely that it was a breach of privilege. The actual words were read out by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition just now. The Speaker used the rather significant colloquial phrase that he was not going to "smell out" privilege—that is to say, he thought any assertion of privilege in this particular case was actually straining privilege. That was the observation made by that great officer in the House of Commons of whom the noble Earl spoke, and spoke with profound respect. But not only that, my Lords. The Government, in order to exercise a sort of malicious revenge upon your Lordships' House, actually stooped to strike out this Amendment on the ground of privilege which the Speaker himself would not declare was a breach of privilege. I think the noble Earl will agree that that is an assertion of privilege of a very extreme character.
I should like to refer to one other Amendment which has also been struck out upon the ground of privilege. Clause 18 deals with the question of unemployment, and on the Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture—whose absence, and the cause of it, we greatly deplore—stated in the most emphatic terms that he considered anything in the nature of relief works were exceedingly uneconomical and injurious, and that the Government were not in any way in the world to be understood as desiring to establish relief works. That commanded universal assent in all parts of your Lordships' House, and, if I may say so in his absence, so noted a Radical as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was the mover of the Amendment which struck that clause out of the Bill. It was not a motion made by the aggressive Lords who sit around me—not at all. One of the defenders of His Majesty's Government moved to strike this clause out, but we on this side of the House, immoderate and intemperate men as we are, tried to mitigate as far as we could the blow Lord Russell was dealing at His Majesty's Government, and therefore a compromise was moved from this side of the House; but both the noble Earl's Amendment and our compromise have been brushed aside by the House of Commons on the ground of privilege.

1357
Will your Lordships realise, what that means? The difference between the two proposals was this. The Government proposal, put quite shortly, was that in determining what works should be carried out under the Bill regard should be had to unemployment—that is that the whole question should be dealt with having regard to the conditions of unemployment. It was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and by others, that that proposal created a very great risk of enacting relief works in the Bill, and so the compromise which we proposed, and which your Lordships were good enough to carry, was that although the time of carrying out works might be determined with reference to the demand for employment, the actual determination as to whether there should be works for the unemployed should be independent of that. That was the difference between the proposal of His Majesty's Government and the House of Commons and the proposal to which your Lordships agreed. That compromise was condemned on the ground of a breach of privilege, so that it is positively held that to say works should not be resolved upon with reference to the demands of unemployment is a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. I do not think it is possible to give a more extreme example in concrete form of the undue extension of the question of privilege than the one I have ventured to give your Lordships to-day, because it is quite clear from that that all questions of employment or unemployment where there is any public money involved, all questions of poor relief, and all questions within the vast domain of public policy, are, according to the decision of the House of Commons, breaches of the privilege of that House. If that position were accepted it would be looked upon as a precedent; indeed, it must be so because the officers of the House are bound by precedent, and every such case in the future would be held to be a breach of privilege, and according to the noble Earl it rests entirely with the House of Commons to decide whether they would insist on such privilege or whether they would waive it.
In order to show the extraordinarily capricious character of the action, I am credibly informed that on the night before this extreme assertion of privilege was insisted on in the House of Commons, scores of Amendments made by your Lordships' House to the Assurance Companies Bill, which were equally open to the extreme
1358
assertion of privilege, were accepted by the House of Commons. Under those circumstances I think your Lordships will realise that we on this side of the House are entitled to make the most serious protest against such a proceeding. I do not believe that the relations between the two Houses of Parliament can ever be smoothed and made to work properly if these extreme assertions of privilege are insisted on, and I am sure your Lordships have heard with profound satisfaction that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition looks forward to a time when these things can be put on a proper footing, without which I am sure the inter-action of the two Houses of Parliament is practically impossible.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, may I say with regard to this Bill, in which I am particularly interested, that I do hope your Lordships will pass the Bill into law. The Leader of the House has asserted that there is no petrol with which to work the machinery of the Bill, but the Bill contains provisions as to how the money is to be provided, and I am quite content to wait until the time comes when the necessary funds are available. This Bill is desired by motorists generally throughout the country; £250,000 has been collected by the petrol tax, and motorists were assured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carry out the undertaking given in the other House.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I should like to raise a protest against passing this Bill as a machinery Bill in order that if the money should be forthcoming at a future time these regulations for the improvement of road and motor car traffic may come about. I want to protest against the setting up of such machinery. I think in the discussion we had in your Lordships' House on the Bill it was pretty generally agreed that there was a very strong feeling in the country against this legislation for motorists only. I need not recapitulate any of the arguments then put forward. Your Lordships will remember that there were protests from the united county councils of England and Scotland against some of the main principles of the Bill. There is not the least necessity now, as I say, to go into these points further, but might I just take up one other curious reason for which the House of Commons has rejected some of the Amendments put forward by this House? It objects to the Amendment to Clause 8,

1359
page 6, because it would alter the purposes for which advances may be made out of the Road Improvement Grant. The Amendment which your Lordships made to Clause 8 of the Bill added to the purposes in respect of which the Road Hoard might make advances to highway authorities that of contributing towards the extraordinary expenditure incurred in the maintenance of roads in consequence of motor traffic. That is objected to on the ground of privilege. When this Bill was first brought into the House of Commons it dealt with motor traffic, and by your Amendment your Lordships were merely carrying out the original idea of the framers of the Bill. This seems to me to amount almost to a constitutional point, because apparently the House of Commons is able at any period of a debate to alter the whole construction of the Bill and we are unable to make any Amendment. If that is so we would be like a dog barking behind a carriage. As soon as they altered the Bill in one direction we should have to bark in that direction, and then at a subsequent period they might alter it again and we would have to bark in that direction. Really, my Lords, that seems to me to be a reductio ad absurdum.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it does seem to me to be overlooked, when your Lordships are considering the course taken in another place, that the only items that appear on the Paper are merely the instances in which the Commons disagree with your Lordships' Amendments. The instances where they have agreed to your Lordships' Amendments are not shown, so that, just as in the case of the Housing and Town Planning Bill, there is on the face of the Paper, may I say, a kind of false appearance of hostility which does not represent the real nature of the case. There were a number of Amendments made by your Lordships which were agreed to in the House of Commons and to which no reference is made in the Order Paper which your Lordships are now considering.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would the noble Earl tell us of any of those Amendments?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I can if I look through Hansard, because while the noble Marquess was speaking I made sure of my facts.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We shall be able to judge of the importance of
1360
the Amendments if the noble Earl will refer to them.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I hope the noble Marquess will excuse me going through them one by one, but if he will look on page 407 [Vol. 13, H.C. Deb.] he will see that a number of Amendments were agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry to press the noble Earl, but if he can mention even two of the Amendments he refers to we can judge of their importance.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I hope the noble Marquess will excuse me if I do not take the Amendments individually, particularly as I am afraid that were I to make a selection the noble Marquess would not be willing to accept my opinion as to their importance. Supposing that there are Amendments which are disagreed with in another place on another ground, on the ground of their merits as well as on the ground of privilege, is it not the case that the reason which is alleged for disagreement when it comes back to your Lordships' House is invariably the question of privilege rather than the question of merit? Why that may be so, I do not know. Noble Lords who sit on this side of the House know that however much we may urge merit with regard to an Amendment that plea is not always treated with the consideration which we think it deserves, and it may be that in another place it is thought that the assertion of privilege is more likely to meet with respect. The noble Marquess quoted what was said by Mr. Speaker in connection with Clause 8, and made much of the fact that Mr. Speaker then said that he did not wish to "smell out" these breaches of privilege. If the noble Marquess will inquire I think he will find that the Amendment with regard to Clause 8 was not a very important one. We do not deny for a moment that, with regard to these Amendments on Clause 8, Mr. Speaker seems to have treated them on a somewhat different footing from the others, but if the noble Marquess is content to accept without demur in the future the fact that when Mr. Speaker asserts that a breach of privilege has taken place that that is so, the arguments in this House will be very much simplified. The noble Marquess might have strengthened his argument about the way in which His Majesty's Government do accept Amendments which might be

1361
considered privileged by reference to another Bill, the Asylums Officers Bill which was discussed in another place a night or two ago. In chat case His Majesty's Government more than once waived the question of privilege. I say that in order to show that His Majesty's Government do not wish to stand too strictly on the letter of the law, but wish to consider in this matter the question of merit as well as privilege.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, according to The Times report of the proceedings of the other House it appeared that the only Amendments agreed to were drafting Amendments, and every other Amendment was disagreed with except one. In that instance the Government actually moved that the House of Commons should agree with your Lordships' Amendment, but the Speaker pointed out that a question of privilege was involved, whereupon the Solicitor-General withdrew the Motion, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer afterwards said that the Amendment might be harmless, but he did not think it would improve the Bill, and that the Government would not waive any question of privilege on that matter, or, indeed, on any other matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out ("or company not trading for profit")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because it alters the persons to whom advances may be made out of the Development Fund; and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above reason, may be deemed, sufficient.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I beg to move that this House do not insist on the said Amendment. I find myself in some difficulty with regard to explaining the reasons of the Commons disagreement to these Amendments, because it will be remembered, no doubt, by noble Lords opposite that on another occasion it was suggested that the course of procedure might be somewhat shortened if in the less important instances I merely formally moved that the House do not insist on the Amendment and refrained from explaining the Commons reasons unless I was asked to do so. I propose to continue that procedure on the present occasion if agreeable to your Lordships.
Moved. That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 1, page 2, lines 10 and 11, leave out lines 10 and 11.
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because it alters the purposes for which advances may be made out of the Development Fund; and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said. Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 1, page 2, lines 16 and 17, leave out ("the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, "1908") and insert ("any statute")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because it alters the conditions under which advances may be made out of the Development Fund; and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think, with regard to this Amendment, that we might ask the noble Earl to enlighten us as to the reasons of the Government for disagreeing.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: As the noble Marquess sees, the Commons allege privilege, and, in addition to that, in our opinion the Amendment is open to objection because on an examination of the purposes for which grants may already be made it will be seen that very few of them are subject to any statutory conditions. The most important purpose for which conditions are laid down by Statute is for the construction of light railways. Those conditions are contained in Section 5 of the Act of 1896, but under the Light Railways Act advances can be made to companies trading for profit, and conditions that might be proper in such a case are not necessarily proper where, as in this Bill, associations and companies trading for profit are excluded from among those bodies to whom advances may be made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his

1363
explanation, but it is not convincing. He says that very few of the purposes are subject to statutory conditions. I should have thought, therefore, that the Amendment could not do any harm. I think it shows that this is not a very important Amendment, and that the real ground on which the noble Earl wishes this to be agreed to is that it is a question of privilege.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 1, page 2, line 20, after subsection (3) insert the following new subsection—
(4) No advance shall be made to any association of persons trading for profit, except to enable a public authority to secure within its area the construction, maintenance, and working of a light railway by a railway company, or of a pier or harbour by a Harbour Board or Harbour Commissioners.
The Commons disagree to the insertion of the new subsection (4) for the following reason:—
Because it alters the persons to whom advances may be made out of the Development Fund; and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 1, page 2, line 20, after subsection (3) insert the following new subsection:—
(5) Before making any recommendation for an advance under this Part of this Act, the Development Commissioners shall consider the matter with special reference to the magnitude of the undertaking and the interests likely to be affected, and the extent and situation of any land necessary for the undertaking and whether such land is likely to be acquired by agreement, and if a majority of the Commissioners consider that their proposals should be laid before Parliament they shall forward a draft recommendation to the Treasury. The Treasury shall not act upon such draft recommendation until it has lain for thirty days during the Session of Parliament on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and if either House during those thirty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making by the Com missioners of a new draft recommendation.
The Commons disagree to the insertion of the new subsection (5) for the following reason:—
Because it imposes an unnecessary restriction on the powers of the Development Commissioners.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will be obliged if the noble Earl will unfold
1364
some reason for this Amendment being disagreed to. The Amendment is disagreed to on the ground that it imposes some restrictions on the Development Commissioners. I should not have so read the subsection. I should have thought it an enabling and not a restricting subsection. If the Development Commissioners consider the matter to be one of sufficient magnitude, they are, under the section, empowered to come to the Treasury and to have their proposals laid before Parliament. There is no restriction upon the powers of the Development Commissioners. It is, on the contrary, a clause which would enable them, if they themselves felt that the issue was one of sufficient importance to resort to this special procedure which would to some extent relieve them of responsibility and give a wider publicity to the question at issue.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The reason why this Amendment is objected to by His Majesty's Government is briefly this. I think it was a subsection which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown. We think the subsection unnecessary for the reason that the money guaranteed by the Bill for the purposes of development is only £2,500,000 to be spread over five years. There are a number of years given to the Commissioners for development purposes, but if they were to inaugurate any very large scheme they would be obliged to get further money from Parliament, and in that way Parliamentary control would be secured. Under the Bill as it stands the sums of money expended will not be sufficiently large to make this recourse to Parliament necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 4, page 4, lines 33 to 37, leave out subsection (4).
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because the information they may acquire in the course of the performance of their duties is likely to place the Commissioners in an advantageous position for framing well considered schemes of development; and it is inexpedient to deprive them of their power of framing such schemes.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 8, page 6, line 26, after ("roads") insert ("or towards meeting the extraordinary expenditure incurred by highway authorities on the maintenance of roads in consequence of motor traffic")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because it would alter the purposes for which advances may be made out of the Road Improvement Grant; and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the noble Earl will explain the Commons reasons for disagreeing with this.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This Amendment is one which proposes that the Road Board should be empowered to make advances to highway authorities towards meeting the extra cost of repairing the roads due to motor traffic. I think your Lordships will see that that would mean that at any rate part of the Road Improvement Grant might be used for the purpose of reducing the existing charges on the rates. Similar proposals were made when the Bill was in another place, but they were resisted on the ground that the whole principle of the Road Improvement Grant would be violated if it was allowed to be used for that purpose—that is to say, for the relief of rates. The essential purpose of the fund is development, and it is obvious that if the grant is used for the relief of rates development would not substantially benefit, whereas if it is made applicable only to the construction of new roads and the improvement of existing roads some substantial benefit might be expected from the expenditure of the money, probably more beneficial than if it went in relief of rates.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It might have been inferred by a superficial listener to the noble Earl that the money would be necessarily diverted from development if the Lords Amendment were insisted upon. That, of course, is not the case. It is only an enabling provision. It enables the local authority, if they think fit, to spend part of the money in the maintenance of those roads which have been destroyed by this new motor traffic, which is really, of course, the very origin of this part of the Bill. The Government
1366
has chosen to refuse the Amendment. I am perfectly confident that the only part of the Bill which the great mass of the local ratepayers will care to have is that part which was inserted by your Lordships. I speak not only as a member of this House but as a member of a county council, and I knew quite well what the local ratepayers suffer from. They consider it an intolerable grievance that their rates should be raised through the destruction of the roads by other people's motors, motors which do not belong to the county and which pay nothing to the resources of the county. That is the grievance. It has put up the rates in my county many thousands of pounds, and this clause would give some relief to the ratepayers. Your Lordships' House desired to give that relief, but the Government has refused to give it, and I earnestly hope that when they have an opportunity of expressing their opinion the ratepayers will remember who are their friends.
LORD LOVAT: I should like to associate myself with what has fallen from the noble Marquess who has just spoken. I think that the ratepayers, represented by the county councils, are absolutely unanimous on this subject. Scotland, also, which is not supposed to be a particularly Conservative part of the kingdom, is absolutely unanimous. That decision was come to at a meeting of representatives held to discuss this very question.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 9, page 7, line 13, at the beginning of the subsection insert ("Every road constructed by the Road Board under the provisions of this Part of this Act shall be a public highway, and the enactments relating to highways and bridges shall apply to such roads accordingly, except that the cost of maintenance of every such road shall be borne by the Road Board and")
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by leaving out the words ("the cost of maintenance of") and by substituting for the words ("borne by") the words ("maintainable by and at the cost of")
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment, and agree with the Commons in their Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 9, page 8, line 5, after ("authority") insert ("and if, notwithstanding an objection

1367
made by a county council within such area, the Treasury consider that the construction of the proposed road shall not have effect unless and until after submission to Parliament by way of Provisional Order, it is confirmed by Parliament")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because the interests of county councils are sufficiently safeguarded without the Amendment; and the Amendment would enable the county Council to throw unnecessary expenditure on the Road Board, and to cause unnecessary delay.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Earl kindly give us the reasons for this?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Before doing so might I refer to the question asked me by the noble Marquess just now, as to what Amendments of substance had been accepted by His Majesty's Government in another place. Firstly, there was an Amendment which demanded an inquiry before land is purchased for afforestation; secondly, an Amendment by the Duke of Devonshire transferring the appointment of the Development Commissioners to the Crown; thirdly, an Amendment with regard to the accounts of the fund; and, fourthly, one relating to the making of orders for the compulsory acquisition of land which I think your Lordships will find in the schedule. I am afraid I am out of order in answering that question now. With regard to this Amendment, your Lordships will see that it enabled any county council which objected to the construction of a new road by the Road Board to require procedure by way of Provisional Order. Clause 7, subsection (3), in our opinion provides ample safeguard that a fair hearing shall be given to any county council, and we do not think that a county council if it thinks itself aggrieved by the refusal of the Road Board to make an advance should throw upon the Board the expense and delay of a Provisional Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 11, page 8, line 26, leave out from ("purpose") to the end of the subsection.
The Commons disagree with this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because the power of acquiring land likely to be benefited by the construction of a new road seems the best method for securing to the Road Board the increment in the value of the land due to expenditure of the Road Board.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 11, page 9, line 9, leave out from the first ("Act") to the end of subsection (5) and insert ("and the Commissioners shall have power to make such an order")
The Commons disagree to the said Amendment, but in lieu thereof propose on page 9, line 9, after the first ("Act")to insert ("and the Commissioners shall have power to make such an order")
Moved. That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment, and agree with the Commons in their Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 11, page 9, line 13, after subsection (5) insert the following new subsections—
(6) No land shall be authorised by an order under this section to be acquired compulsorily which at the date of the order has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, but such an order may contain power to acquire compulsorily an easement over such land for the purpose of carrying any new road over or under the same, and shall in that case contain all such provisions as the Development Commissioners may deem necessary for the protection of the owners of such land and the prospective development thereof for the purposes of any such undertaking and for securing the safety of the public using the same and the free and uninterrupted passage of traffic thereover.
(7) Where, by the approval by the Treasury of the construction of a new road under this Part of this Act, any property is increased in value, the Road Board or the highway authority, in cases where a highway authority are authorised to construct a new road under this Part of this Act, if the Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, make a claim for the purpose within three months of the approval by the Treasury of the construction of the road, or of an order made by the Development Commissioners authorising the acquisition of land for the purpose of the road, whichever be the later, shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is so increased in value such proportion of the expenditure of the Road Board or the highway authority, as the case may be, as failing agreement, in the opinion of an arbitrator, such person should pay having regard to the improvement in the value of such property.
(8) Any disputed question as to whether any property is increased in value within the meaning of this section or as to the amount and manner of payment (whether by instalments or otherwise) of the sum which the Road Board or the highway authority is entitled to recover, shall be determined by arbitration under this Act in accordance with the schedule to this Act.
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because, as respects the new subsection (6), it may be necessary to acquire for the purposes of the new road land belonging to a corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking; and, as respects the new subsections (7) and (8), because they are proposed in substitution for the provision us to the acquisition of land at the side of the proposed new road which has been struck out by the Lords.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Leave out clause 18 and insert the following new clause B.—
B. In arranging the time for the execution of any work which has already been approved under this Act, and which involves the employment of labour on a considerable scale, regard shall be had so far as is reasonably practicable to the general state and prospects of employment.
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because it alters the conditions under which advances may be made out of the Development Fund and the Road Improvement Grant, and the Commons consider it unnecessary to offer any further reason, hoping the above reason may he deemed sufficient.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 19, page 11, line 13, leave out from ("Parliament") to the end of subsection (3), and insert ("but this provision shall not apply to the acquisition of any common land for the purpose of the construction of a new road or the improvement of an existing road within a rural district:
"Provided that no order of the Development Commissioners under Part I or Part II of this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land which is a metropolitan common within the terms of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or is a suburban common as defined by the Commons Act, 1876, or is subject to a scheme of regulation made in pursuance of the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1866 to 1898, or the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, or to a private or local Act "of Parliament")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because it unnecessarily restricts the power of acquisition of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment, for the purposes of the Bill.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships insist upon the retention of your Amendment to Clause 19. This clause has nothing whatever to do with privilege. The Amendments which were introduced by your Lordships were for the purpose of safeguarding commons and open spaces for the benefit of the masses of the people. It has sometimes been said that your Lordships take more interest in land than in any other subject, but it cannot be said that in this matter your Amendments are in any way connected with selfish interest. You are defending the interest of the poorest classes, and why the Government should go out of its way to strike out such Amendments is to me incomprehensible. For over fifty years the trend of legislation has been in the direction of safeguarding open spaces in the public interest, and I for one have devoted the greater part of my life to that object. Open spaces were proposed to be taken by the Commissioners for the purpose of afforestation and for making roads. An Amendment dealing with the latter object, moved by Lord Clinton, has safeguarded roads, but why should commons be covered with plantations? Who has asked for them? I have not met with a single individual who thought the Government proposal necessary, or seen a single line in any newspaper asking for such a thing. It is said that reasonable access will be afforded, but who, with any knowledge of what afforestation means, will put forward that contention? Afforestation means planting for beauty or for profit. If the planting is to be for beauty that means the planting of single trees, and certainly that is not intended. What is meant is the planting of portions of common land for profit. Not many of your Lordships will say that your attempts at afforestation have been profitable ventures. I, like others, have planted, because I think it will be for the good of the country, but my books show that I have not profited by it. It is not possible to grant access to planted land if the trees are intended to prosper; there will have to be close planting, and the land will have to be fenced. Suburban and metropolitan commons, it is said, are safeguarded. They are not safeguarded. There are portions of Epping Forest which are

1371
under rural jurisdiction, and this Bill only says metropolitan and suburban commons. Metropolitan means fifteen miles from the centre of London; suburban means five miles from a thickly-populated district; and there are many most useful commons such as Epping Forest, portions of which are open and which the verderers do not want to plant because they are of use to the public. I know the verderers are exceedingly anxious about this, and so also are the City of London, and I do hope your Lordships will insist on your Amendment for the sake of the public. In the other House this Amendment was supported, among others, by Sir Charles Dilke, who spoke strongly of the need of safeguarding our public spaces, and with due respect to His Majesty's Government, I do hope they will not insist on striking out your Lordships' Amendment.
Moved, That this House do insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Earl of Meath.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the opinion of His Majesty's Government is that the clause as originally introduced provides an adequate safeguard for these open spaces which noble Lords on this side of the House are as anxious to keep open as the noble Earl himself. The subject has been carefully considered in consultation with the Commons Preservation Society, and the clause is assented to both by that Society and by the Government. In these circumstances I think the noble Earl may rest content, without fear of undue encroachment upon common rights. The effect of the Amendment the noble Earl wishes to retain will be to prevent the compulsory acquisition of any common land except by means of a Provisional Order, introducing thus an unnecessary safeguard, because there is nothing in this Bill likely to demand any very large acquisition of land of that kind. In view of the fact that the Commons Preservation Society, which is a society of experts, were content with the Bill as originally introduced, I venture to hope your Lordships will not press the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Earl does not see his way to meet my noble friend. This Amendment really stands in a somewhat
1372
different position from others. It is not an official Opposition Amendment, and when it was discussed at an earlier stage no objection was offered to it on behalf of the Government. If the Amendment goes too far, surely the Government might suggest some less objectionable formula. In the opinion of all interested in the preservation of commons the Bill, without the Amendment, will leave some of the most interesting and important commons highly vulnerable. Representations have been made to me in particular in reference to Epping Forest to the effect that, if the Bill remains as it is, there will be nothing to prevent the forest being disfigured by unsightly thoroughfares driven through the most interesting parts of it, and by the planting of formal plantations entirely out of harmony with the surroundings, which as each year goes by, under the present admirable management, become more beautiful and more valuable to the public. This is a point with regard to which both sides of the House, so far as general policy is concerned, desire that these open spaces should be protected, and I greatly regret that His Majesty's Government do not see their way to meeting us on this point.
THE EARL OF MEATH: With the leave of the House, might I point out to the noble Earl who replied to me that although it is perfectly true that the Commons Preservation Society agreed to the clause, yet they were forced into that agreement by His Majesty's Government. They have issued a circular with regard to this matter, and if your Lordships will permit me, I will read what they say—
"Under these circumstances the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society feels itself at liberty to join with the other Open Space Societies in expressing an earnest hope that the House of Commons will assent to these Amendments of the House of Lords, the more so as they are changes made in the interest of the public. The Open Space Societies are of opinion that adequate protection of the rights of the commoners and the interests of the public can only be secured by requiring a rigid adhesion to the established rule that the sanction of Parliament must be given to each scheme of enclosure…. The Open Space Societies venture to hope that the House of Commons will not disagree with the Amendments of the House of Lords to Clause 19 of the Development and Road Improvements Funds Bill, since those Amendments are calculated to protect the interests of the commoners and general public in commons and open spaces, and to uphold the important principle that such land shall not be alienated without Parliamentary sanction in each case."
On Question, Motion to insist on the Amendment negatived.
Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
In the Schedule, page 13, line 33, after ("otherwise") insert—
(5) An order may provide for the continuance of any existing easement or the creation of any new easement over the land authorised to be acquired, and every such order shall, if so required by the owner of the land to be acquired, provide for the creation of such new easements as are reasonably necessary to secure the continued use and enjoyment by such owner and his tenants of all means of access, drainage, water supply, and other similar conveniences theretofore used or enjoyed by them over the land to be acquired.
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by leaving out the following words, viz. ("and every such order shall if so required by the owner of the land to be acquired, provide for the creation of such new easements as are reasonably necessary to secure the continued use and enjoyment by such owner and his tenants of all means of access, drainage, water supply, and other similar conveniences theretofore used or enjoyed by them over the land to be acquired")
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment and agree with the Commons in their Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
In the Schedule, page 13, line 38, after ("easements") insert ("or in Scotland servitudes")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because it is desirable to generalise the definition, of "easement" in the application of the Bill to Scotland.
Moved, That this House do not insist on the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
In the Schedule, page 13, Line 39, after ("land") insert—
(7) In this schedule the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by the Development Commissioners.
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by adding the following words at the end of the paragraph viz. ("and in Scotland the expression' easements' means servitudes")
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we did not think it desirable to put the House to the trouble of dividing with regard to these Amendments for reasons which I have already indicated, but we desire, before leaving this Bill, to put on record that we are quite unable to accept the reasons which have been alleged as sufficient for the rejection of the bulk of our Amendments. I will read to the House the Resolution which I propose to move:—"That this House, although not insisting upon the Amendments to the Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill, does not accept the reasons offered by the Commons, or consent that the said reasons should hereafter be drawn into a precedent. The Bill, in the opinion of this House, involves questions of policy in which both Houses are concerned, and with which this House has in the past been accustomed to deal." The statements embodied in this Resolution are matters of fact and history, and I do not think it necessary to dwell upon them; but we desire that the Journals of your Lordships' House should contain a record of this kind which will make it clear to those who hereafter have to study these questions what exactly was the attitude taken up by your Lordships' House.
Moved to resolve: "That this House, although not insisting upon its Amendments to the Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill, does not accept the reasons offered by the Commons, or consent that the said reasons should hereafter be drawn into a precedent: The Bill, in the opinion of this House, involves questions of policy in which both Houses are concerned, and with which this House has in the past been accustomed to deal."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
On Question?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Onslow, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Marlborough, D.

Plymouth, E.

Clinton, L.

Powis, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Camden, M.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Hastings, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Westmeath, E.

Hindlip, L.

Salisbury, M.

Wharncliffe, E.

Lawrence, L.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Lovat, L.

Camperdown, E.

Falkland, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hardinge, V.

Newton, L.

Cawdor, E.

Hill, V.

Northcote, L.

Clarendon, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

St. Levan, L.

Derby, K.

Sanderson, L.

Harewood, E.

Iveagh, V.

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

Lovelace, E.

Mansfield, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Liverpool, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

Haversham, L.

Airedale, L.

Lucas, L.

Allendale, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Armitstead, L.

Pentland, L.

Carrington, E.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Pirrie, L.

Craven, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Saye and Sele, L.

Granville, E.

Glantawe, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative accordingly.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order): Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Denman.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, before this Motion is passed, may I, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Londonderry, who is unavoidably absent at this moment, say a word or two with regard to the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904. Strong representations have been made to my noble friend from newspaper proprietors about this Bill being put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is well known that Bills that go into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill get passed by both Houses at the end of the session, and are very apt to
1376
go through without any discussion and without any attention being drawn to their provisions, and the newspaper proprietors wish to enter a protest against this Bill being put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. They anticipate that very great developments will take place in the near future in wireless telegraphy, which affects them very considerably, and being, as it is a monopoly of the Post Office they think that that Bill ought to be brought up separately so that there may be a full opportunity for discussion in both Houses of Parliament as to these new developments. My noble friend Lord Londonderry does not desire to press for an undertaking that it should come up separately next session, because I do not suppose that His Majesty's Government would care to give any undertaking as to what may happen in the next session of Parliament, but I think I might ask for some expression of opinion about this Bill, and some indication that His Majesty's Government do not think it unreasonable that this question of wireless telegraphy should be dealt with outside the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and that an opportunity should be given for full discussion and for those who are competent to do so to state their opinions on the subject.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I had something to do in the first instance with

1377
this Bill. It was originally introduced by me at the close of the session in another place, and was got through as an agreed Bill. There was an express stipulation then that it should be put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, because it was felt that there were likely to be so many developments occurring in wireless telegraphy in the course of the next few years that it would be a pity to make a permanent Statute of something which might require alteration. It was therefore introduced by me and passed through both Houses of Parliament, and it was put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It was amended, if I remember aright, at Mr. Sydney Buxton's instigation two years afterwards, and it has expressly been put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill so that every year it should come up and there should be an opportunity for dealing with any new features which have arisen. I do not think that your Lordships could possibly consent to any Bill being taken out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and made a Bill renewable every year. It has either got to be placed permanently on the Statute Book, or, as in this case, put in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which does give an opportunity to members of both Houses to raise any question of interest that comes up.
LORD DENMAN: On behalf of Lord Granard, who represents the Post Office, I wish to say a word in reply to the, noble Earl, Lord Plymouth although I think that his remarks have been entirely dealt with by the noble Earl, Lord Derby, and that I am absolved from saying anything more in the matter. I would only like to add this to what Lord Derby has said, that in view of the Radio-Telegraphy Convention and the purchase of the Marconi stations by the Government, it might be necessary to alter the Act, and in that case a more definite and comprehensive measure might be introduced.
THE EARL OF DERRY: That is exactly the reason it was put in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, because it was felt that there would be a more comprehensive Act required later on.
On Question, Bill read 2a. Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

SMALL DWELLING-HOUSES IN BURGHS LETTING AND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Commons Amendment in lieu of a previous Amendment disagreed to by the Lords and Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments considered (according to order).
Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment.
After clause A, inserted by the Lords as a consequential amendment, insert the following new clause D—
D. Every payment of an assessment by an owner under or in pursuance of the provisons of the immediately preceding section shall, notwithstanding any deduction which the assessing authority is required to allow therefrom, be deemed a payment of the full assessment by the occupier for the purpose of any qualification or franchise which depends on such payment. Provided that where an owner who is responsible therefor omits or neglects to pay any such assessment, the occupier may pay the same and deduct the amount from the rent due or accruing due to the owner, and the receipt for such assessment shall be a valid discharge of the rent to the extent of the assessment so paid. And provided further that all provisions of any Act with respect to notice to be given of occupiers' assessments in arrear shall apply to occupiers of premises capable of conferring any franchise are aforesaid, although the owner of such premises are responsible for the occupiers' assessments thereon.
The Commons do not insist on this Amendment, to which the Lords have disagreed, but propose to insert in lieu there of the following new clause D, viz.:—
D. Every payment in pursuance of the provisions of the immediately preceding section shall be deemed a payment of the full assessment by the occupier for the purpose of any franchise which depends on such payment: Provided that where an owner who is responsible therefor omits or neglects to pay any such assessment, the occupier may pay the same and deduct the amount from the rent due or accruing due to the owner, and the receipt for such assessment shall be a valid discharge of the rent to the extent of the assessment so paid; and provided further that all provisions of any Act with respect to notice to be given of occupiers' assessments in arrear shall apply to occupiers of premises capable of conferring any franchise as aforesaid, notwithstanding that the owners of such premises are responsible for the occupiers' assessments thereon.
Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment.
In new clause A inserted by the Lords—
Line 96, after paragraph (iii) insert the following new subsection, viz.:—
(4)—(i) If an owner who has undertaken by agreement with the occupier to pay any assessment on his behalf omits or neglects to pay it, the occupier may pay the same and deduct the amount from the rent due or accruing due to the owner, and the receipt for such assessment shall be a valid discharge of the rent to the extent of the assessment so paid.
(ii) An owner shall not be called upon nor be liable to pay any assessment imposed by a parish council on behalf of an occupier under or in virtue of the provisions of this section until after the twentieth day of June next following the imposition of the assessment.
(iii) All provisions of any Act with respect to notice to be given of occupiers' assessments in arrear shall apply to occupiers of premises capable of conferring any qualification or franchise, although the owners of such premises are responsible for the occupiers' assessments thereon.
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because the Amendment combined with the consequential omission of Clause D, previously inserted by the Commons, would cause financial inconvenience to parish councils, and would operate to disfranchise occupiers who pay parish rates by instalments along with the rent.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the new Clause D which is printed in italics on the Paper issued to your Lordships. Perhaps it may be permissible for me, in making this Motion, to explain very briefly why the Government propose to take up this position. My noble friend the Lord Steward pointed out, in the discussion on the Development Bill, that the Government are at a disadvantage in these discussions from the fact that the Amendments to which they have either here or in another place agreed are not brought to your Lordships' notice on this the last occasion on which these Bills will be before your Lordships, at any rate this session; but I do not think it is necessary for me to quote particular Amendments to support the statement that the House of Commons have, on the earlier occasions during which this Bill has been before them, accepted various Amendments which your Lordships proposed to this Bill, and which have, in effect, substituted for the original compounding system the scheme of compounding which now finds a place in the Bill founded on the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892. While acquiescing in these changes I must remind your Lordships that the Government at the time agreed to them with some reluctance, which they indeed entertain still, as to the wisdom of these changes. They are not satisfied that the arrangements proposed will be entirely satisfactory, but, as I have said, they have accepted the change. There is one thing, however, to which they find themselves unable to agree, the effect of which would be in their opinion to hamper the free operation of this Bill by retaining in their entirety the existing statutory provisions
1380
relating to the payment of poor rate as a qualification for franchise.
I entered so fully into this matter on a previous occasion that I may possibly be excused from again enlarging upon it; but I may remind your Lordships that this change, to the necessity of which the Government adhere, was found necessary in England when the same question was raised and decided in the year 1869. It was then provided that payment of poor rates by an owner under a system of compounding should qualify the occupier for the Parliamentary franchise. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton, on the last occasion when we discussed this Bill, pointed out that the comparison with England was weakened in his view by the fact that this Bill contained higher provisions for rent of the houses than the English provisions to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention. But I think the noble Lord has forgotten that, under the occupancy franchise of the Reform Bill of 1832, in all houses of £10 and upwards personal individual payment of poor rates is not insisted upon as a qualification for franchise. A full system for compounding is permitted in houses of £4 and under, so that there is, I think, very little weight at all in the contention of the noble Lord so far as principle is concerned. We are still dealing, as we were at first, with occupiers of houses of a rental of £5, £6, £7, £8, and £9, and £9 is, if I remember aright, the exact limit of the compounding provisions in England. So it does remain true that in principle this matter has been settled for England as the Government wish to settle it now for Scotland, so long ago as 1869, on precisely the lines which the Government wish to take up on the present occasion. Your Lordships did not take that view. The Bill was returned to the House of Commons containing a clause the practical effect of which would be, in the opinion of those qualified to advise, to disfranchise a large number of persons who would have in fact paid their poor rate with their rent.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Will the noble Lord kindly explain to us how it will disfranchise anybody?
LORD PENTLAND: When I say disfranchise I do not mean taking away the right by law.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then what the noble Lord means is that it will not enfranchise.
LORD PENTLAND: No, I mean by the operation of the Bill there would be practical disfranchisement of persons who now enjoy the franchise. An occupier must pay his poor rate by June 20—that is to say, before the obligation imposed on the owner arises, and it is obvious that he will have to face one of three courses. First, he will have to give up the advantages of this Bill, to give up the adoption of a system of short lets which your Lordships purport to be giving him by this Bill, he will have to go on in the old way taking his house by the year and paying his rate direct. That is one alternative. Another alternative is that he shall pay the rate twice over, that he shall go on paying his instalments and at the same time have to pay direct to the authority the whole rate for the year with what power of recovery he can find, and, as I pointed out to your Lordships on a previous occasion, if he has removed he may even be paying instalments on his rent in a new house. That is the second alternative. The third alternative which is before him is to refuse to compound with his landlord who has every inducement under this Bill to institute a system of compounding with all his tenants. With this variety of courses before him and with the dislocation which undoubtedly this will impose on the collection of rates by parish councils, there can be nothing but confusion if the noble Lord's clauses are still retained and insisted upon in this Bill. I have heard no reason whatever except this particular fear that the noble Lord has about the franchise, no justification whatever for separating in treatment the poor rate from the other rates. Suitable facilities are given in this Bill as regards other rates with the direct object of facilitating the working of the Bill with regard to the introduction of a system of short lets. The effect of the provisions regarding the poor rate, as I do not think the noble Lord can possibly deny although he may think they are necessary for other reasons, must be to have a direct opposite influence and tendency—namely, to discourage the adoption of the very system which the majority of your Lordships profess to wish to introduce.
I know the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, has on previous occasions objected to my characterising his scheme as compounding. He says it is not compounding because he goes first to the occupier; the liability is laid first upon he occupier to pay the rates, and after the occupier comes the owner.
1382
Compounding is a system under which the owner pays the rates with the right of recovery against the tenant. It will be perfectly legal under the noble Lord's clause for that to go on. He himself says that he wishes to encourage voluntary arrangements, which shows that the very system which operates in England will be a perfectly legal course in Scotland under the noble Lord's proposals. There are two very strong inducements which he leaves in the Bill towards the adoption of that course. In the first place parish councils must be considered. Parish councils will want, in the presence of these short lets and frequent, removals of working men, as good security as they can for the payment of their rates; they will look to the best security, no matter in what order the noble Lord places it. It cannot be denied that the owners of the houses, who do not remove monthly or quarterly or half-yearly, must inevitably be considered by parish councils a sounder and safer security for the payment of the rates than working men who may remove under this Bill at very short periods. What is more, the noble Earl explicitly allows parish councils the right of recovering against the owners for rates. Then there is the question of the tenants. The tenants want to pay their rates with their rental. Your Lordships allow them to pay their municipal rates with their rental, but you refuse to allow them to pay their poor rates with their rental, except with the heavy penalties which the noble Lord adds in his clause requiring that the whole poor rate of the year shall be paid by June 20. My Lords, I have little hope that anything I can say will alter your Lordships' mind on this matter, but you are, unintentionally I have no doubt, inflicting a very serious injustice upon a large body of people in Scotland by these provisions. As a matter of fact, the large majority of people affected by this Bill are men who have under the present system, with the inconvenience which they have hitherto suffered and which this Bill seeks to remove, paid both their rent and their rates on a yearly system and up to now have thereby qualified for the franchise. Why should they not be qualified under the new system? You are saying to these people, "For your convenience Parliament is now going to give you what you have asked for, a system of short lets with power to remove, as they have in England without losing the right to the franchise." Why should you inflict now upon them this risk of losing their right to vote? Let me remind

1383
your Lordships that this matter was not raised in the House of Commons in the first place; it was not discussed in the House of Commons until it had been raised in your Lordships' House. It was never put forward as an objection to this Bill by the Opposition in the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Oh, yes.
LORD PENTLAND: I think not, but if I am wrong I am, of course, open to correction. The noble Earl insists on this, and your Lordships have supported him because it might enfranchise a few people who under the old system would not have been enfranchised. Otherwise, he cannot fairly call this an enfranchising measure. Now, who are these few people? They are people who the noble Lord imagines will have paid instalments of rates with their rent not covering the whole year and who will find themselves on the register of voters. In the first place, these are a very small and disproportionate minority of those whom this Bill seeks to benefit. In the second place, to support his theory the noble Earl must suppose that the removal of each of these men who are to be enfranchised is to take place within the same Parliamentary division. As a matter of fact, he knows that there will be a directly opposite tendency under this Bill. If you give people an elastic system which will allow them to give up their house in Glasgow and go to Belfast because shipbuilding happens to be slack in Glasgow and flourishing in Belfast, that will have the direct effect of encouraging removals, and will therefore operate to reduce the number of working men who are placed on the roll. The noble Earl has said that he will not allow the Franchise Acts to be interfered with. I do submit that that is an evasion of the real point which I seek to put before your Lordships—that a number of men who are, perfectly properly, under the present system allowed to exercise the franchise will be disfranchised by the system you are now insisting upon.
All the experience which we have both in England and Scotland shows that you cannot have a system of short lets, as they are called, unless you have compounding in some form. The noble Earl accepts compounding in principle although I know the distinction which he draws between one system and another. My Lords, you
1384
are meting out to Scotland a harder measure than you have hitherto meted out to England, and I am only expressing the view of the Government when I say that we feel strongly that it is taking an unfair advantage of the necessities of working men who will benefit by this system to impose upon them a disability which the Amendment of your Lordships must inevitably impose upon them. If your Lordships are not prepared to agree to the clause as now sent up from the House of Commons I fear there will be no prospect of placing upon the Statute Book an Act which is very anxiously desired by a great number of the working-classes in Scotland. I may point out to your Lordships that the Government have been most anxious that no opportunity should be lost of endeavouring to place this Bill upon the Statute Book. The new Clause D which has now come up from another place differs very little from the original Clause D which was sent to the House of Commons by your Lordships' House, but it does differ sufficiently to leave the door open to your Lordships if you so will to refuse your assent to the Bill. But I would again venture to assert that if you decline to assent to what the Government now propose your Lordships are denying to Scotland what Parliament gave forty years ago to England, and the sense of unequal treatment and injustice, which is thereby conveyed, will assuredly remain and be heard of in the future.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment inserted in lieu of new Clause D.—(Lord Pentland).
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I suppose I am correct in inferring that unless the House agrees to drop its own Amendments and to accept this Clause D, the Government will not proceed with the Bill. I very deeply regret that decision. The Government in taking that course are giving up a Bill which deals with an admitted grievance in house-letting simply because the House is not prepared so to alter the conditions on which rates are paid as to place upon the Parliamentary register persons who might never have paid their rates at all. Let it be clear, therefore, that it is on one point only—that in regard to rating—that the Government are prepared to drop their Bill. Its purpose is to make illegal certain arrangements made between some owners of houses and their tenants which made it necessary to take

1385
houses for long periods before they are actually required, and to give security that they would be occupied for at least a year. That was an undoubted grievance which was dealt with by this Bill, and not a word in the measure relating to house-letting or the grievances which are connected with house-letting has been altered in any way by your Lordships' House. The Bill as it came to this House' was in a state of great confusion. Grave exception was taken to it by Scottish municipal authorities, and great cure was bestowed upon it both in your Lordships' House and outside in order to make the Bill a workable measure. So anxious were we to accept, as far as was possible, the Amendments of the House of Commons that against our own better judgment we agreed to parish councils being brought into the Bill, thereby for the first time giving those authorities power to recover rates from the owners of houses; but we said that the scheme must be carried out in such a way as not to interfere with the law relating to the franchise. That was the sole alteration which your Lordships made in regard to this matter. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland said that the franchise question was not discussed in the House of Commons.
LORD PENTLAND: It was not first raised in that House, was what I said.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It was raised on the Report stage of the Bill in the other House, and Sir F. Banbury moved an Amendment which was practically the same as that which your Lordships inserted. It was discussed at considerable length, and Mr. Ure said it was because the Government desired that the measure should not be a Franchise Bill that they could not accept that Amendment. If those words had been used by anybody but Mr. Ure only one possible meaning could be attached to them; but in regard to Mr. Ure's utterances it is necessary to see what other possible construction can be placed upon them. What in charity it might be supposed that Mr. Ure meant was that, although he did not alter the law in regard to the franchise, in so many words, he was going to alter the law in regard to the payment of rates in such a way as to get round the franchise law and place upon the Parliamentary register persons who might not have paid their rates. If the words are taken literally there is no doubt they are absolutely incorrect.
1386
According to the noble Lord, and according to the meaning which is placed upon it by Mr. Ure, he has reinstated compounding certainly in fact, and almost in words, just exactly as it would have been if we had left the original clause in, because Mr. Ure in this Amendment which your Lordships are asked to adopt inserts words which would attach an interpretation to Clause 345 of the Burgh Police Act, 1892, which is not in accordance with the interpretation given to that clause up to the present time. Moreover, the noble Lord said that this is a matter of extreme injustice to the working man. That is not contended even by their own supporters. Mr. Barnes, who, I believe, was the originator of this whole matter, said the other day in the House of Commons—
"So far as these rating provisions go, that is a matter upon which the working man does not feel keenly."
I quite agree with him. I do not believe the working man does feel it keenly, and I cannot for the life of me understand what the noble Lord means when he says we disfranchise people. Your Lordships have disfranchised nobody. We leave the law exactly as it is. A person who pays his rates is now entitled to have his name upon the register and will continue to have exactly the same right as at present.
LORD PENTLAND: Will the noble Earl continue the quotation from Mr. Barnes, so that we may get his full meaning?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Mr. Barnes proceeded—
"Yet I am glad to find that the Lord Advocate has disagreed with this Amendment of the Lords, which would have had the effect of disfranchising a good many men."
I will put to Mr. Barnes exactly the same question that I put to the noble Lord, and I shall be much obliged if he will answer it: "Whom do we disfranchise?" We do not alter the law in any kind of way. If a man by paying his rates at the present time in connection with his rent is entitled to get on the register, that right remains to him exactly as it is at this moment.
LORD PENTLAND: Does the noble Earl deny that that right is accompanied by the difficulties, if you like to use the word, or, as I describe it, the penalties, which this clause attaches to the exercise of that right in future?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The person at present entitled to be on the register will continue to have the same rights as he has at the present moment, whatever those rights happen to be. We do not enlarge those rights, we simply leave the law as it is. As the noble Lord said, it is very hard on a man who pays his rates in connection with his rent to be disqualified, but if your Lordships will look at the clause in the Bill as it went from this House you will see that we did go the length of saying that any man who paid his rates in his rent and whose owner did not pay them should, on receiving notice, have a right to pay those rates himself and to deduct them from the rent, and that meets the exact case which the noble Lord has put. I am very glad the noble Lord has given us his reasons to-day. I must say that they were given much more fully and much more satisfactorily to my mind than on previous occasions. But, my Lords, I wish to reiterate this, that your Lordships have in no way touched anything which relates to the house-letting portion of the Bill and that so far as that is concerned it departs from this House quite as favourable to the new occupier as it entered it. That is all I wish to say with regard to this Amendment. I greatly regret that the noble Lord is determined to drop the Bill. All I can say is, the responsibility of dropping it rests with the Government and with them alone. With regard to the house-letting portion of it, as the Bill is apparently to be dropped, I do wish to give a word of advice to house-owners. I took a considerable amount of trouble to examine into their relative rights and the claims of municipalities and others, and therefore I do feel that I am able to offer a word of advice with regard to the house-letting portion of the Bill, which I believe is the really valuable part and the part which occupiers care most about. I venture to hope that house-owners will be wise enough although the Bill does not become law, to themselves carry out the house-letting sections of it in their entirety. I believe, if they do that, there will be nothing more heard with regard to these rating provisions. If I were a house-owner that is the course I should take, and I venture to think if my suggestion is adopted these disagreements will be met by private arrangement, and this appears to me to be a much better way of settling these matters than by the provisions of a Statute.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words on the principle that underlies this measure, because I think it important that the position of noble Lords on this side of the House who are connected with Scotland should be made perfectly clear. I think also the position of your Lordships' House generally should be made clear. We are entirely in agreement with the main objects of the Bill. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Scotland, has admitted that. We are in favour of the alteration in the system of house letting because we know quite well that the present system of letting for long periods is an undoubted hardship upon a large number of occupiers, who, owing to some change in their employment, have to leave their houses before the expiration of their term and may have to pay a full year's rent. But there are many details in the Bill with regard to which we disagree with His Majesty's Government for reasons which we have stated perfectly clearly and which were supported by persons in Scotland best qualified to deal with the matter, and who would have had to do with the carrying out of the Bill if it had passed. We moved Amendments, with regard to every one of which we have given way with the exception of the Amendment which is now the subject of discussion as to the principle, and it is a big principle, of compounding.
The matter really is a very simple one. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland described perfectly correctly, but in most complicated language, the effect of the Amendment before your Lordships' House. The system of compounding is vastly important, first of all because, whatever may be said to the contrary, the Bill alters the whole basis of the principle on which our franchise rests. It rests on two qualifications—on residence and on payment of rates. The payment of rates with regard to a considerable number of houses disappears as a qualification. It is really so great a change that I think it is perfectly reasonable that we should have asked the Government to state fully and clearly their intentions and their objects in this part of the Bill and not to have brought in this big change of the franchise as a side issue. If the Bill had passed in the form which the Government desire we would have an entirely different franchise in the burghs and in the country districts, and considerable inconvenience would be caused. In some

1389
divisions you get two different qualifications, the burgh occupier, who is not bound to pay rates, and the country occupier, who is bound to pay rates. That is a state of things obviously unfair to the country occupier, who is placed in a worse position than the burgh occupier.
These compounding clauses we claim are not necessary to the Bill; they are really an excrescence upon the Bill, put in for some purpose of the Government. I know the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland does not agree with that. He says it is essential to any system of house letting that you should institute also a system of compounding. I do not want to go over this ground again. I stated on a former occasion that although that was the view of the Secretary for Scotland it was not the view of Lord Guthrie's Departmental Committee which took a very considerable amount of evidence on the matter. Of course, if the Government choose to risk this Bill for considerations which really have nothing to do with the Bill, then the measure, as the noble Lord said, will be lost. But I think it does show very little desire on the part of the Government to pass the measure when they are willing to lose it because they have failed to get established a principle of compounding which every authority has condemned and which a Departmental Committee have stated is not essential to the carrying out of the Bill. There is absolutely no attempt to defend compounding upon its merits. It has been condemned by every authority—by Royal Commissions, by Departmental Committees, by those who are working among the poor, and I think within the last year by noble Lords on both sides of your Lordships' House. It is condemned as demoralising to the poor themselves, because it must and does take away the interest of every man who so compounds for rates in the proper carrying out of the local government of the place in which he resides. His rent remains fixed from year to year, and he has no knowledge of or interest in the way in which the expenditure of his district and the government is carried on. It takes away from him the true sense of responsibility of citizenship which your Lordships are anxious to place upon everybody in the country, and it does lead to very great extravagance in municipal expenditure. There is complaint everywhere of the enormous amount of municipal indebtedness which is being created and which is becoming
1390
so great as to be almost a national danger. That extravagance in expenditure we notice to a very much greater extent in England than we do in Scotland, because in Scotland we have not at present the same system of compounding.
LORD PENTLAND: The objection that has been taken to the system of compounding has been entirely on the question of the franchise. The noble Lord cannot ride two horses. Noble Lords who oppose the Bill as we would have it have accepted compounding in principle.
LORD CLINTON: On that we absolutely disagree. We say it is not compounding, and the noble Lord says it is. We shall never come to an agreement on that head.
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Lord will not deny that compounding is a perfectly legal operation under the Bill as he would have it—that the owners should pay the rates by compounding up to the full limit, and he will not dispute the desirability of voluntary arrangements being come to to that effect.
LORD CLINTON: Exactly. Under the Amendments to the Bill these things can be done in cases of agreement, and in cases of agreement only. Just one more thing. I believe it is apparent that we shall lose the Bill. I regret it exceedingly, but it is not essential, even for next year's purposes, that the Bill should pass at this moment. We are apparently on the eve of a General Election, and one Party or another will be returned to power, whether it is the Party of noble Lords who sit on this side of the House or the party of noble Lords opposite. In the latter case they may be returned in a more chastened spirit and more ready to accept Amendments from your Lordships' House, and there is no reason why this same measure, with the exception of compounding, should not be pressed through all its stages without any difficulty whatever in a few days next session in time to affect next year's house letting.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, I wish very shortly to endorse the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Camperdown. This Bill seems to me to be not a House Letting Bill but an enfranchising Bill. The effect of Clause D would be to enfranchise

1391
a man in spite of the fact that he might not intend to pay one penny of the rates of the house which constitutes his qualification. Your Lordships have met the Government in every respect, and we are prepared to meet the Government in every respect now, except one, which has no bearing on the Bill. We only object to an owner being compelled to enfranchise a compounding ratepayer who may not even pay his rates. It is with some diffidence that I question an assertion made by the Lord Advocate, but as to his statement that the Amendments which were sent down to the Commons would have disfranchised any occupier, I really cannot understand it, and I cannot understand it even now after the explanation from the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland. I would ask the noble Lord how and under what Act would we have disfranchised anybody? Is it under the existing Scottish law as to the franchise, or is it under some new franchise which is contemplated by this Bill? The noble Lord's justification for this change apparently is that he is applying the English Act to Scotland—the Poor Kate Assessment and Collection Act of 1869; but, as my noble friend Lord Clinton has already pointed out, the compounding clauses in that Act have been condemned by every competent authority in the country, and I cannot conceive why they should be applied under different conditions, as they are, to Scotland. If this Bill were passed into law, as amended by the House of Commons, we should abolish the franchise disqualification for non-payment of rates in every burgh throughout the country. If the Government wish to after the franchise, they should bring in a Franchise Bill. The attitude of the Lord Advocate with regard to this question has been very clearly shown in his replies to Sir Frederick Banbury. I do not wish to go into the question of the Amendment moved by Sir Frederick Banbury except to point out that it only dealt with this question of franchise; it did not interfere in any way with any of the proposals as regards house letting; it did not interfere with the question of compounding, it dealt only with the franchise; but the Government refused to consider that Amendment just as, ever since, they have refused to consider any Amendment which is designed to protect the present franchise law of Scotland.
LORD PENTLAND: The noble Lord
1392
asked me to point out to him how this could be fairly characterised as a disfranchising proposal. I have already explained my view on that point to your Lordships, but I will put this very briefly to him. If persons avail themselves of the proposals of this Bill in regard to having shorter lets for their houses, it will undoubtedly be more difficult for them under the clauses of the noble Earl opposite than it is now to qualify themselves for the exercise of the Parliamentary vote.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: How?
LORD PENTLAND: I do not wish to detain your Lordships. It would not be right, after the courtesy you have extended to me this afternoon, that I should say anything more on this subject, but if I might be permitted to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, who enlarged on the system of compounding and the difficulties which would be introduced owing to the disparity of the position between country voters and burgh voters. I would put it to him that all those difficulties have already been faced in England.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: And failed.
LORD PENTLAND: I am talking of facts; the noble Lord is talking of opinions. Forty years ago none of these objections were thought strong enough to bar the way to granting to the people of England what we are asking should be granted to Scotland and to Scottish working men. The noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, was good enough to give some advice to the house-owners. Let me remind him of the progress this Bill has made. I think when he first took it in hand in this House he put two or three different sets of Amendments on the Paper before he arrived at a conclusion. The last set went through three editions and that brought him to the point where the Government started from in the introduction of this Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Oh, no.
LORD PENTLAND: In my opinion it did. I may tell the noble Lord that nearly two years ago, with all the influence I can command from the position which I hold, I uttered the same warning to the house-owners without any effect, and I can

1393
only say that the insistence of your Lordships in destroying this measure seems to me to throw a very curious light upon your confidence in referring any question to the judgment of the people.
Motion negatived accordingly.
LORD PENTLAND: From the first the Bill has been taken almost completely out of the hands of the Government, and the Amendment which has been insisted upon has, I think, been twice before the other House and twice rejected by it. In those circumstances your Lordships must see that it is hopeless for me to trouble you with any further proceedings in regard to this Bill, which must be added to those on which your Lordships have imposed a sentence of death. I ask leave to withdraw the Bill.
Bill, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

THE THORNEY ESTATE.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention had been called to a letter written by Mr. Rowland Prothero, from the Bedford Office, with reference to the sale of the Thorney Estate, which appeared in the Press on Monday the 29th of November; and whether the statements made with regard to the action of the Board of Agriculture were correct.
On Question, whether the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment?
Their Lordships divided: Contents; 21; Not-contents, 38.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Airedale, L.

Lucas, L.

Allendale, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Armitstead, L.

Pentland, L.

Carrington, E.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller]

Sandhurst, L.

Granville, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Saye and Sele, L.

Liverpool, E.

Glantawe, L.

Shuttleworth, L

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Welby, L.

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Haversham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal).

Powis, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Devonshire, D.

Waldegrave, E.

Clinton, L. [Teller.]

Marlborough, D.

Weatmeath, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dummore.)

Wharncliffe, E.

Hastings, L.

Camden, M.

Lawrence, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Churchill, V.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Falkland, V.

Lovat, L.

Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

Hampden, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Catheart, E.

Hardinge, V.

Newton, L.

Cawdor, E.

Hill, V.

St. Levan, L.

Lovelace, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Sanderson, L.

Mansfield, E.

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

Mayo, E.

Iveagh, V.

Onslow, E.

Zonche of Haryngworth, L.

Plymouth, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton)

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting this Question to the President of the Board of Agriculture I must express my great regret that I have brought him here under circumstances extremely inconvenient to himself, and I should like to offer him my gratitude for being present under the circumstances. It is not necessary for me to enter in detail into this particular question. The Thorney estate is noticeable for two reasons. In the first place it is an example cited by the noble Earl opposite of an appreciation in value which has arisen since the present Government assumed office, and, in the second place, it enjoys another distinction inasmuch as it cannot possibly be described as land which has been stolen from the people, because, as everybody knows by this time, the estate was created many years ago out of marshes and land reclaimed from the sea. Since the year 1816, when it was acquired by the Duke of Bedford's predecessor, a sum of nearly two millions has been spent upon it.
My noble friend the Duke of Bedford a short time ago made up his mind—I believe solely for public reasons—to sell this property to the sitting tenants, and he offered to leave a large portion of the purchase

1395
money on mortgage. Thereupon the most astonishing thing took place. These miserable down-trodden tenants, whose spirit, presumably, had been broken by generations of servitude under Dukes, instead of manifesting joy at their deliverance from this thraldom, showed an exactly opposite feeling, and begged to be allowed to remain on as tenants at increased rents. Thereupon the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture stepped into the arena as the deus ex machina and opened up negotiations for the purchase of part, at all events, of the property. But two serious obstacles presented themselves. The first was that the rents were so low that the noble Earl was not able to show what, in the opinion of the Government, would be a satisfactory profit on the transaction. I believe the noble Duke's rents represented a profit of something like two per cent. It was, therefore, intimated to the noble Earl, I understand, by his colleagues that he must really show something better than that, and must realise something like four per cent. The second difficulty arose from the fact that the property happened, unfortunately for the Government, to belong to a Duke. As we all know, although we are rather tired of the subject by now, Dukes are the principal weapon in the armoury of the Government at the present time, and the more acute and shrewder members of the Cabinet at once saw their difficulty. They realised that it would never do to buy from a Duke cheaply and then represent that you had made a very good bargain by charging enhanced rents afterwards. It was pointed out to the noble Earl that if this transaction was to be carried out on behalf of the Government he really would have to show a substantial profit; and if, as I say, it was to come out that you had bought very cheaply from a Duke and yet had to extract more money from the tenants it would "give the whole show away" as far as the ducal question was concerned.
The noble Earl, to do him credit, showed himself quite equal to the task, and I confess I am rather surprised myself because I have always considered my noble friend opposite as distinctly the most ingenuous and the most unsophisticated member of the Government, and I always welcome his interpositions into the vitiated atmosphere of politics just as I welcome a breath of fresh air or the aroma of new-mown hay. It only shows how mistaken one can be in appearances. My noble friend has
1396
turned out to be a sort of political Janus. He presents to us the appearance of a sort of bucolic philanthropist, but behind this smiling front we have now detected the appearance of the artful and designing wire-puller and politician. Not only did the noble Earl succeed, with great ingenuity, in getting these tenants to say that they wanted their rents raised—a very clever thing in itself—but he hit upon the brilliant, almost I may say the Napoleonic, idea of asking the Duke of Bedford to raise the rents himself before parting with his property, so that presumably my innocent and magnanimous friend the Duke of Bedford would suffer from the odium attaching to that proceeding while the President of the Board of Agriculture would enjoy such credit and glory as arose out of the transaction.
That was a very remarkable feat on the part of the noble Earl opposite. But what is more amazing to me than anything in the history of this transaction is that the Duke of Bedford actually agreed to this proposal. I really on the spur of the moment find it almost impossible to think of any act of self-denial in history comparable to the action of my noble friend, who I regret is not present this evening. He reminds me of the Swiss patriot who, when the fighting was going against his own side, collected the spears of his enemy and plunged them into his own bosom in order that his friends might escape. The noble Duke has done better than this. He has diverted on his own head all the thunder and fury of Radical opposition, and has turned himself into a scapegoat for his class. I confess that such an act of self-abnegation is altogether beyond my intellect and understanding. If I had been asked to perform an operation of this kind I should have refused without the slightest hesitation. In justice to the much-abused class to which the noble Duke belongs, I hope that when they are arraigned before the bar of public opinion it will be counted for righteousness on their side that there was at all events one man among them who was willing to practise Christian virtues to the fullest extent. What I wish to know is whether it is the case that the noble Earl opposite actually invited the noble Duke to place himself in this extraordinary position in order literally to save the face of the Government. I should be obliged if the noble Earl would at the same time explain what particular virtue there can be in land

1397
nationalisation, recommended by certain members of the Government, when it must be perfectly apparent to anyone who has considered these transactions and correspondence that it is much more economical to be the tenant of a Duke than the tenant of the Government.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, I will try, as briefly as I can, to give an account of what really happened in the case of this estate; but I hope I shall be excused from going into the question of land nationalisation, which was so well dealt with last night by my noble friend, Lord Crewe. During last autumn I heard that the Thorney estate was to be sold, and I therefore approached the Duke of Bedford on the subject. On October 31, 1908, the Duke wrote me to say that he had determined to offer the Thorney estate by public auction in the summer of 1909, but that he would prefer to sell it to the Government. On February 16 of this year I had an interview with the Duke on this subject. On February 17 the Evening Standard announced the price at which the Duke was willing to sell to the Crown, and it was copied from the Evening Standard into other papers in the course of the next few days. But it was not until February 23 that the price asked was communicated to me by the Duke's agent, Mr. Prothero, and that was done confidentially.
The offer I received then would have necessitated the raising of the rents by fifty per cent. if the Crown were to obtain a fair return on their purchase. I was therefore unable to give the price asked by the Duke, and I declined his offer. Early in February the Duke gave notice to quit to all his tenants in view of the sale. On February 25 a deputation of the Duke's tenants waited on me and implored me to buy the estate for the Crown, and they pledged themselves voluntarily to pay the rent that was fixed by an independent valuer. That petition was signed by seventy tenants. I do not want to exaggerate or overstate anything, but the state of mind of those tenants was, to say the least of it, a state of very considerable anxiety. I was anxious to do what I could to meet their wishes, and my object in desiring to purchase was to a great extent to keep the tenants on the land. If the land had been sold in the open market it might have been bought by speculators
1398
or anybody else, whose only object naturally would have been to make money out of the tenants. If the Crown purchased it was necessary to secure a reasonable return on the money, and, as the existing rents were notoriously low, some increase of rent was inevitable, whether the Crown or any other purchaser bought the property.
In negotiating for the purchase valuations were made on behalf of the Crown and of the Duke. The Duke's advisers proposed an increase of forty-six per cent. of the rents, and based their valuation on that rental, but the Crown's advisers considered the proposed increase was too large, and they based their valuation on an increase of thirty-five per cent., and it was this difference which caused the failure of the negotiations between the Crown and the Duke with regard to the estate. The proposal that the Duke himself should raise the rents before the sale, to which, I understand, great objection has been taken, was made in order that the Crown might buy on an existing rental that represented the fair value of the land. The increase I proposed was less than the increase recommended by the Duke. My proposal, therefore, was obviously to the advantage of the tenants, and, as your Lordships have seen, they were perfectly satisfied to pay that increase. But since this question, much to my regret, has been threshed out in public, although my negotiations failed, I think I may fairly say that they had the effect of causing the Duke of Bedford to abandon his first proposal to sell by public auction, and, as a majority of the tenants have now purchased their holdings, my object, to some extent, has been achieved. The only reason I had for referring to the matter at all during the recent Budget debate was to show by a concrete instance that agricultural property, so far from being damaged by the Budget, has actually very largely appreciated in value, and that it finds now a ready sale at excellent prices. That is the answer to that part of the question.
Will your Lordships bear with me while I refer to alleged inaccuracies in the speech I made on the Budget debate? Mr. Prothero writes a letter to the paper in which he says that Lord Carrington made four statements and that—
"Not one of these statements conveys a correct impression of the facts."

1399
What are these statements? "The acreage of the estate is 20,006 acres." I stated in the House that the acreage was 23,000 acres, but I have, I think, some excuse for that statement, because in the Duke of Bedford's book it is put down as 22,845 acres, and these are the figures that I quoted. The whole mistake about that is, I believe, that there is an outlying portion of that estate which is sometimes called the Thorney estate and sometimes the Thorney and Wansford estate. Then Mr. Prothero says that—
"The rental in 1905, as stated in the book from which Lord Carrington professed to quote, was £22,195."
On page 74 of the Duke's book the rental of that year is given as £22,195 and the expenditure as £22,636, and the difference between the figures happens to be £441, so, may I respectfully ask, where does that authoritative answer come in? The next statement he makes is that—
"Lord Carrington made no bid for the estate, but only for a portion of it."
I may not have made a bid, but I made an offer originally for the whole of the estate on the basis of the then rents. When I discovered the value the Duke had put on the estate I found that the money belonging to the Office of Woods and Forests Would not cover the whole, and therefore I had to bid for a part of the estate, as it would have been impossible for the Government to borrow money for the purchase of an estate. Lastly, Mr. Prothero says the estimate of the sum for which the property has been sold is inaccurate. We have been told that the estate was sold for three-quarters of a million. Mr. Prothero does not tell us now what the price really is. Had it been less, I think I should have heard of it before now, and if it is more that only strengthens my argument.
I made two statements, neither of which, I understand, Mr. Prothero cavils at or questions. I said that in 1897 the Duke of Bedford wrote a book to prove that his Thorney estate, among others, yielded no profit, did not pay its way, and was a source of perpetual expense; that the estate was practically unsaleable and per se insolvent in point of income and expenditure. Those are not my words. They are the words of the noble owner of the estate, and that was the way he described his estate in 1897. I went on to say that in this year, at a time when it was being said that in
1400
consequence of the vindictive Budget no person can venture to invest in home securities, his Grace sold this unsaleable and insolvent estate for three-quarters of a million. There is no attack upon anybody. That is a simple and absolute fact which Mr. Prothero himself does not attempt to deny. I have had the honour of being a member of your Lordships' House for forty-one years, and I do not think there are many in this House who would wish to impute to me the intention in any sort or kind of way to hold up so good a landlord as I truthfully and publicly declare the Duke of Bedford to be as a money-grabber, as I have been accused in Mr. Prothero's letter of doing, or to make him the scapegoat of a Radical Government—as was represented in the letter to which the noble Lord has called attention and which has been much commented on by the Tory Press.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, in the debate in your Lordships' House on the Finance Bill I followed the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, who in his speech made a reference to this estate, but, of course, I had not the opportunity, in the interval between the noble Earl sitting down and the remarks which I addressed to your Lordships, to obtain any information as to the correctness, or perhaps I ought to say the justice, of the remarks of the noble Earl. But those who are the representatives of the Duke of Bedford have now made public what are the true facts of the case in connection with this Thorney estate, and I am very glad to think that the noble Earl does not in any way impugn the veracity of Mr. Prothero. Mr. Prothero stated, and the noble Earl admits that the statement was perfectly correct, that he declined to purchase the estate until the noble Duke had himself raised the rents of his tenants in order that the Government might show a more profitable bargain and might not have thrown upon them the odium of raising the rents themselves.
I think anybody who has read the correspondence which has passed on this subject will have seen what was in the mind of the noble Duke from the very beginning. The noble Duke was interested in keeping his tenants on the land. He may have given them notice; it is a customary practice when you are about to sell an estate to give notice to your tenants in order that

1401
you may give vacant possession at the earliest possible date. The noble Duke had an offer some years ago for this estate, not of £750,000, but of £800,000. Why did he not accept it? He did not take it because he thought it was made by land speculators who would be likely to disturb his tenants. Then the tenants, being between the frying-pan and the fire, preferred the frying-pan of the noble Earl, the President of the Board of Agriculture, and they said that even if they had to pay fifty per cent. more in rent they would be at any rate assured that they would continue as tenants if the Crown became the purchaser of the estate The Crown did not become the purchaser. Who did? The tenants themselves—at least five-sixths of them have become the purchasers of their own holdings. The purchase-money, or a large portion of it, has been allowed to remain at interest, and the result is that your Lordships will see established on the Thorney estate the old-fashioned class of what is known as yeoman farmers in this country.
What was the whole tone and gist of the speech of the noble Earl. It was to show that under a beneficent Liberal Government the value of the Thorney estate had increased enormously, and that the noble Duke was able to sell it for three-quarters of a million. But he neglected to tell your Lordships that the Thorney estate had cost the Duke of Bedford and his ancestors £1,800,000 and is now sold for £750,000. Had the money spent on this estate been invested in three percent. Consols the Duke of Bedford would have been a much richer man than he is. I do not think that the case which the noble Earl has put before your Lordships is one which will be a great encouragement in the direction of the nationalisation of land. It is proved abundantly that neither the State nor the county councils can afford to buy land and let it to tenants at the same rent that private owners can afford to do. Here you have the Duke of Bedford letting his land for a return of two per cent. and the Government saying that they cannot do it without a return of four per cent.
I venture to say that before we are very much older we shall find that the rents that county councils are obliged to charge for small holdings to guard the ratepayers from loss will be a great deal more than the same land could be let by
1402
private landowners in the way that is customary among the members of your Lordships' House and other landowners of the country. I think we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the noble Earl for the instance of the Thorney estate, for I am sure no example could more clearly show that the great landowners of the country, of whom the noble Duke is an ornament, desire to treat their tenants with absolute fairness and equity and do not seek to obtain even an ordinary return for the capital invested. It you are going to put the land in the hands of the State instead of in the hands of private owners, the inevitable result will be that those who cultivate the land will have to pay more for it.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order).
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I understand that there are two Amendments to be moved by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and therefore perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House that the Commons Amendments should be put en bloc down to the point at which the noble Lord proposes to insert his Amendments.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments down to the words "save as otherwise expressly provided," on Page 2, be agreed to.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
The Commons Amendments embraced in this Motion were—
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill No. (173.)]
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after ("unions") insert ("which persons and bodies of persons are")
Clause 2, page 3, line 16, after subsection (6) insert the following new subsection—
(7) This section shall apply to an assurance company registered or having its head office in Ireland, subject to the following modifications:
References to the Supreme Court shall be construed as references to the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, and references to the Paymaster-General shall be construed as references to the Accountant-General of the last-mentioned court.
Clause 3, page 3, line 25, after ("name") insert ("Provided that nothing in this section shall require the investments of any such fund to be kept separate from the investments of any other fund")
Clause 5, page 4, line 11, after ("condition") insert ("including a valuation of its liabilities")
Clause 13, page 7, line 1, leave out from ("that") to ("it") in line 4.
Clause 13, page 7, Clause 13, page 7, line 4, after ("statement") insert ("and other documents")
Clause 13, page 7, line 5, leave out ("the") and leave out ("of such companies or company")
Clause 13, page 7, line 7, after ("holders") insert ("nor in the case of a transfer to such policy-holders if the business transferred is not life assurance business or bond investment business")
Leave out clause 15.
Clause 24, page 11, line 1, after ("officer") insert ("or agent")
Clause 26, page 11, lines 16 and 17, leave out save as otherwise expressly provided")
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Commons Amendment.
Clause 27, page 11, line 24, after ("policy") insert ("Provided that where any person claiming "to be interested in a policy has given to the" company notice in writing of his interest, any "notice which is by this Act required to be sent to" policy holders shall also be sent to such person "at the address specified by him in his notice")
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lard Hamilton of Dalzell.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had given notice to move, after "interest" in the Amendment, to "insert" and of his desire that notices should be sent to him at an address specified in the notice." The noble Lord said: I am in a difficulty with regard to this Amendment and the other Amendment standing in my name on the Paper, owing to the late period of the session at which we have arrived and to events which have happened during the last two or three days. I have no doubt whatever that if I could put your Lordships in possession of all the facts which I have at my disposal you would agree that on their merits these Amendments ought to be inserted. I would remind your Lordships of the position of this Bill. It came before this House for Second Reading in August. It was then debated at some length. Certain Amendments which were asked for by the life offices were subsequently agreed to, but a great many Amendments which were considered important were not accepted by His Majesty's Government. A week ago the Commons returned the Bill to your Lordships' House with certain Amendments, and those Amendments were in many cases a reversal of the undertaking given by the President of the Board of Trade to a deputation which waited upon him from the life offices. It may be pleaded, perhaps with reason, that the President of the Board of Trade had no alternative, but the very important interest on whose behalf I speak to-day
1404
have nothing to do with that. They maintain that unless these two Amendments are inserted in the Bill their position will be greatly prejudiced, and they would prefer to lose the Bill than that it should proceed without the Amendments. I have received a telegram to-day from the Life Association of Scotland, which comprises eleven offices domiciled in that country. They repeat what I have already told your Lordships, that unless the Amendments are carried they would far sooner that the Bill was dropped
And when I mention that on this occasion I speak for thirty-two out of thirty-five life assurance offices—twenty-four English and eleven Scottish—with a capital of £165,000,000 and an annual income of £20,000,000, you will see that the case I present is not without weight. On going through the books of one of the most prominent life offices it was found that in the case of 200 policies which had been issued no fewer than 235 notices had been lodged. These policies were not picked out, but were taken consecutively as entered in the company's register. In an ordinary life office there are from 10,000 to 15,000 such policies, so you see the enormous amount of work which will be placed, as the clause now stands, upon any company which wishes to amalgamate.
My second Amendment is to the new paragraph (g) inserted in Clause 31 by the Commons—
(g) Any business carried on by an assurance company which under the provisions of any Special Act relating to that company is to be treated as life assurance business shall continue to be so treated, and shall not be deemed to be other business or a separate class of assurance business within the meaning of this Act.
I propose to add, after the words "relating to that company," the words "or under its constitution." There are in London about twenty-two purely life offices, which conduct their business in a certain way legalised by Parliament. An exception to this case is the Norwich Union, which has a private Act of its own. The Board of Trade discovered late in the day that this private Act existed, and they have, by means of this clause, given a special exemption and monopoly to the Norwich Union which they have denied to other companies. I hold that rather than twenty-two companies should be brought into line with one, one company should be brought into line with the other twenty-two; I think

1405
justice demands that. The insertion of my Amendment would place these companies on the same basis as, and would not in any way prejudice, the Norwich Union. The companies consider these two Amendments to be of first-class importance, and if the Government choose to refuse to accept them the responsibility must rest on their heads. I shall wait with interest to hear what the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has to say; and I now move my first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After ("interest")in line 3 of the Amendment to insert ("and of his desire that notices should be ' sent to him at an address specified in the "notice")—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: The noble Lord has said that this Amendment of the Commons is a reversal of some undertaking which was given by my right hon. friend to the life offices. I cannot admit that. This is a Bill dealing with a highly technical matter, in which a great number of different interests are involved, and the whole history of this Bill has been an endeavour by the Board of Trade to do substantial justice to each of these interests, and at the same time to do justice to the policy-holders in this country. The policy-holders, I need hardly say, must be the object of the utmost solicitude on the part of the Department and they must be the people whose interests must be kept first of all in view.
This particular Amendment was discussed in the House of Commons, and it was moved there in substantially the form in which the noble Lord now moves it. But as the result of discussion and in order to meet the objections of other interests, the Amendment was inserted in the form in which it appears in the House of Commons Amendments to this Bill. Now, what is this Commons Amendment? It requires that when amalgamation of two insurance companies takes place certain notices as to the proposed amalgamation or transfer of business shall be given to persons who have registered themselves with the company as being interested in policies. I do not understand that the noble Lord denies that it is absolutely right and proper that those notices should be sent out. Here are people who have lent or invested money or taken out a policy of insurance in certain companies, and if their security or their property is to be altered in any way it is
1406
obviously right that they should receive notice. What the noble Lord proposes in his Amendment is that these notices should only be sent out in cases where the person claiming to be interested in a policy has intimated his desire that notice should be so sent. There is not a very great difference between us so far as future policies are concerned, because it is obvious that if these words were put into the Bill any one sending such a notice would put these words into the notice and the thing would become a common form. But what it really amounts to is that the noble Lord wishes rather to trade upon the fact that a certain number of people who have already sent notices may not take the trouble of any future action in the matter, and by that means they would be deprived of the protection which we think it is right they should be given.
The Board of Trade cannot agree with that view, and in consequence I am unable to accept the noble Lord's Amendments. I would point out that owing to the late period of the session at which we have arrived it may be difficult to get any Amendment through another place, and for that reason I was particularly anxious that these Amendments should have been taken earlier. The noble Lord saw fit, when the Commons' Amendments came up the other night, to move that their consideration be adjourned, and that course was adopted. I was not in a position to prevent its being done; but I very much deprecate that a purely departmental Bill of this kind should not have been allowed to go through in the calmer atmosphere which then prevailed.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My sole object in moving the adjournment was to give a further opportunity for compromise.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I do not think it did facilitate matters; and in view of the late period of the session, and the position of affairs at the present time, it would be difficult to induce the other House to accept Amendments, and, therefore, I hope they will not be insisted upon.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I sympathise a great deal with the noble Lord's first Amendment, for I have no doubt that the requirement as to notice will create a good deal of difficulty in insurance offices.

1407
should the question of amalgamation come up. At the same time, I cannot think that the point is really so very important as to run the risk of losing the Bill, which I must say has a great deal to recommend it. As to the Norwich Union, I do not quite see how the power conferred upon it by an Act of Parliament could he withdrawn, because no doubt they would have already entered into many contracts. But seeing the period of the session at which we have arrived, I should greatly regret, although I sympathise with the noble Lord in the object he has in view, if any action we took to-night led to the loss of the Bill. In these circumstances I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I venture to join with the noble Lord in expressing the hope that nothing will be done to jeopardise the passing of this Bill. I do not think the arguments used by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment tended to show that it was one of first-class importance. The noble Lord, however, did make one remark which I thought seemed to indicate the trend of his mind in regard to the question generally. He told your Lordships that those whom he represented would not be sorry if the Bill did not pass, and if the result of pressing the Amendment would be to destroy the Bill. I must say that is not an object with which I can sympathise. I think it would be rather a calamity if this Bill—a departmental, and, to a large extent, non-contentious Bill—were to be made use of for that purpose which has commonly been called "filling up the cup."
With regard to the second Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, I am not sure that I am greatly in sympathy with the Commons Amendment as it stands. At the same time the statutory right which the Norwich Union possess is one which they have acquired at some expense to themselves and after going through the null of the two Houses of Parliament, and it scarcely seems right that by a side wind in a general Act you should take away from any person or corporation special privileges which have been granted to them and ratified by an Act of Parliament. For that reason I think your Lordships might very properly allow the exceptional position of the Norwich Union to be recognised. But when you go further than that and propose that a provision shall be inserted which amounts to enabling any existing
1408
insurance company, by simply calling together a meeting of its shareholders and making an alteration in its articles of association, to do that which Parliament has sanctioned in the case of the Norwich Union, then you are taking a step which goes a great deal further than the necessity or justice of the case demands. In view of the lateness of the session and the fact that these Amendments are not of first-class importance, I hope your Lordships will not imperil the passage of the Bill.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I did not refer to the noble Lord's second Amendment because I did not understand that it was before the House. I only wish to endorse what fell from the noble Earl who has just sat down, and to say that the position of the Government is substantially the position the noble Earl has taken up. The Amendment regarding the Norwich Union would enable any company which made in its articles of association the alteration suggested, or which had such a clause in its articles of association, to drive a coach and four through the provisions of the Act of 1870, which requires life funds to be kept absolutely distinct from other funds. I therefore oppose that Amendment as well.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Your Lordships will do well not to disregard the advice given to the House by the noble Earl the Lord Chairman. We have arrived at a moment when we have to consider not merely the intrinsic merits of the proposals which are submitted to us. As to those merits, speaking as one who has no pretention to expert knowledge, it seemed to me that Lord Montagu was able to make a strong case. He certainly was able to show the House that he had a considerable amount of backing for his proposal. But the situation is peculiar. We have to consider how we stand with regard to time. It is quite clear, from what the noble Earl who leads the House told us earlier in the evening with regard to another Bill, that to send any measure that comes to us to-day back to the other House of Parliament would be to decree the loss of that measure; and we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the political atmosphere at this moment is not very favourable to compromise. In these circumstances it certainly appears to me that any insistence on the part of the noble Lord upon his Amendment would probably

1409
be fatal to the Bill. Most of us do not desire that an untoward fate should overtake this Bill, and I would, therefore, counsel him, on those grounds and not on any ground connected with the strength or weakness of his case, not to insist on his Amendment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: After what the noble Marquess has said and in the circumstances in which we are placed I am afraid I have no alternative but to accept the position and withdraw my Amendments. But I would add that the large number of companies which I represent feel that they have been badly treated by the Government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I beg to move that the remaining Commons Amendments be agreed to.
Commons Amendments.
Clause 28, page 11, line 30, leave out from ("append") to the end of the clause and insert ("to such accounts, balance sheets, abstracts, statements, or other documents any note of the "Board of Trade thereon, and any correspondence in relation thereto")
Clause 30, page 12, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert ("the expression annuites on human 'life' does not include superannuation allowances and annuities payable out of any fund applicable solely to the relief and maintenance of persons engaged, or who have been engaged, in any particular profession, trade, or employment, or of the dependents of such persons")
Clause 30, page 12, lines 29 and 30, leave out ("other than those relating to deposits")
Clause 31, page 13, line 11, after ("on") insert ("death (except death by accident only) or")
Clause 31, page 13, line 13, leave out ("except the contingency of fatal accident")
Clause 31, page 14, line 13, after ("apply" insert the following two new paragraphs
(g) Any business carried on by an assurance company which under the provisions of any Special Act relating to that company is to be treated as life assurance business shall continue to be so treated, and shall not be deemed to be other business or a separate class of assurance business within the meaning of this Act.
(h) In the case of a mutual company whose profits are allocated to members wholly or mainly by annual abatements of premium, the abstract of the report of the actuary on the financial condition of the company, prepared in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of this Act, may, notwithstanding anything in section five of this Act, be Made and returned at intervals not exceeding five years, provided that where such return is not made annually it shall include particulars as to the rates of abatement of premiums applicable to different classes or series of assurances allowed in
1410
each year during the period which has elapsed since the previous return under the Fourth Schedule.
Clause 32, page 14, line 17, leave out from("company") to ("to") in line 19.
Clause 32, page 14, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("twenty-fifth day of May nineteen hundred and nine") and insert ("passing of this Act")
Clause 33, page 15, leave out line 39, and insert ("passing of this Act")
Clause 33, page 15, line 40, after ("make") insert ("or keep")
Clause 34, page 16, line 37, after ("business") insert ("wholly or mainly")
Clause 35, page 18, lines 29 and 30, leave out ("twenty-fifth day of May nineteen hundred and nine") and insert ("passing of this Act")
Clause 36, page 19, line 16, after ("unions") insert ("and may, on the application of an un registered society, extend to the society the exemption conferred by this Act on registered friendly societies, if it appears to the Board, after consulting the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies that the society is one to which it is inexpedient that the provisions of this Act should apply")
Clause 37, page 19, line 22, leave out ("or")and after ("grandchild") insert ("brother or sister")
Clause 37, page 19, line 35, after ("expenses") insert ("and any such policy shallenure for the benefit of the person for whose benefit it was effected or his assigns")
Clause 37, page 20, line 8, after ("a") insert ("mutual")
Clause 37, line 9, leave out ("unless") and insert ("if")
Clause 37, line 12, after ("satisfied") insert ("on a poll being taken") and leave out ("one-fourth") and insert ("fifty-five per cent."),
Clause 37, line 13, leave out ("object") and insert ("over sixteen years of age agree") and leave out from ("conversion") to ("and") in line 14.
Clause 39, page 20, line 41, leave out ("January") and insert ("July"), and after ("ten") insert ("except that as respects section thirty-six it shall come into operation on the passing thereof")

IN THE SCHEDULES.
First schedule, page 21, Note 6, after ("through") insert ("Branch Offices or")
Third schedule, page 27, leave out Note 2 and insert the following new note—
Note 2.—A balance sheet in the above form must be rendered in respect of each separate fund for which separate investments are made.
First schedule, page 27, in Note 3, leave out from ("and") in line 1 to ("a") in line 2, and at the end of the note insert ("in the case of a company transacting life assurance business or bond investment business, this certificate is to be given on the occasions only when a statement respecting valuation under the Fourth Schedule is made")
Fifth Schedule, page 46, line 21, after ("tax" insert ("It must be stated whether or not the mean fund upon which the average rate of interest is calculated includes reversionary in vestments")
Eighth Schedule, page 50, line 35, after ("pounds") insert ("in respect of each class of business")
Eighth Schedule, page 51, line 7, after ("fire") insert ("or accident")
Eighth Schedule, page 51, line 12, after ("insurance") insert ("or reinsurance")
Eighth Schedule, page 51, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("non-marine")
Eighth Schedule, page 51, line 15, after ("shall") insert ("without any apportionment")
Eighth Schedule, page 51, line 22, leave out ("such business") and insert ("fire and accident business and any other non-marine business carried on by him for which special requirements are not laid down in this schedule")
Eighth Schedule, page 51, line 28, leave out ("member") and insert ("under-writer")
Eighth Schedule, page 51, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("in respect of policies issued by him")
Eighth Schedule, page 51, line 29, after ("such") insert ("fire and accident and other non-marine")
Eighth Schedule, page 51, line 31, after ("audited") insert ("annually")
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Third Report of the select Committee considered (according to order), and agreed to.
House adjourned at Four o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.