I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if it is correct that complaints have been made that children attending the Hersham School, a public elementary school under the School Board of Walton-on-Thames, have been compelled to receive religious instruction in contravention of the Conscience Clause of the Education Act; whether the Hersham School has been declared inefficient in consequence of the result of the last examination; and what steps have been taken with respect to the Walton School Board under these circumstances by the Education Department?

Although the direct responsibility of the Board was not proved, breaches of the Conscience Clause did in effect occur in one or two instances some time ago, and the Department is now engaged upon the investigation of another charge under the same section of the Act. It is also the case that the Hersham Boys' School has been declared inefficient. The Department has no intention that the Board should evade its duty either in regard to the Conscience Clause or as to maintaining its schools in a state of efficiency; and unless its procedure is thoroughly reformed, it may render itself liable to default.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the case of a prisoner named Kinsella, at present in Maryborough Prison, in ill-health, undergoing a sentence of 20 years' penal servitude, for an aggravated assault upon a man named Sullivan; and whether, in view of the fact that Sullivan obtained £150 compensation, and has long ago recovered from his injuries, and that the sentence of 20 years' penal servitude passed upon Kinsella was inflicted at a time of great social disturbance and excitement in Ireland, he can see his way to advise the Lord Lieutenant that the ends of justice have been satisfied by the term of 10 years' penal servitude already undergone, and that the clemency of the Crown might now be exercised to remit the remainder of the sentence?

I am informed that the convict referred to was sentenced, with three others, for the attempted murder of John Sullivan, who was beaten about the head with iron bars and left for dead. I am not aware of Sullivan's present condition of health. The question of revising the sentence passed upon this convict has been before two Lords Lieutenant, who decided that they saw no reason for remitting the sentence in accordance with memorials received.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say, has the memorial been before the present Lord Lieutenant?

I will inquire if it has been; I think it has.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has observed that almost every Corporate Body and Poor Law Board in the County of Cork, with the strongly-expressed approval of the Recorder of Cork, has now passed unanimous resolutions urging an extension of time for the operation of the Evicted Tenants' Clause of the Land Purchase Act of last Session; and whether, in view of the strong expression of public opinion among all classes upon the subject, he will introduce a short Bill making the required extension?

This question is substantially the same as a question addressed to me by the hon. Member on 19th February last, and I then stated that if information came to me that both the landlord and the former tenant desired to avail themselves of the provision contained in the section referred to of the Act of 1891, but found themselves precluded from so doing through the limited time in which that section was in operation, I should consider as to the course to be taken. That information would be a condition precedent to any action on my part, and no such information has reached me.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Boards of Guardians are composed equally of landlords and tenants, and have not these resolutions been passed unanimously with the assent of the ex officio Guardians? Can the right hon. Gentleman have a better expression of both landlords and tenants?

The hon. Member has, I think, rather missed the point I wished to bring before the House. I said, if evidence were produced before me showing on the part of tenant and landlords—in other words, the parties interested in making agreements—that they desired to make such agreements, but were precluded owing to the lapse of that section of the Act, then I would endeavour to find some means of meeting the difficulty. No such evidence has come before me.

In what form would the right hon. Gentleman desire the information to come? Would a memorial from any body of tenants, showing the necessity of this, satisfy him, or would he wish landlords to join in such representations?

I said landlords and tenants.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Return relating to the way in which the Resolution of the House of 13th February, 1891, in reference to the question of Government Contracts is being carried out, will be printed and circulated?

The Return mentioned by the hon. Member is now being printed, and I hope it will be distributed in the course of a few days.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that newspapers, posted in Fleet Street and other parts of the E.C. Postal District at three p.m. on Saturdays, are not delivered in Kensington and other places within a three mile radius until eight a.m. on the following Monday; whether he is aware that this delay is caused by the insufficiency of the sorting staff and the want of space in the E.C. District Office; and whether, considering the great inconvenience to the public by delay, and the important revenue derived by the Postal Department from the distribution of newspapers from this centre, he will provide a sufficient staff and a suitable building for the expedition of the business of the E.C. Postal District?

The omission complained of is exceptional and not regular. Newspapers posted up to 4.45 p.m. in minor offices, and up to 5.30 p.m. in larger Branch Offices, are in time for delivery on the same evening. There has been some unusual pressure lately in the East Central Office on account of numerous vacancies among sorters, but that is in course of remedy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Office is not at all suitable for the business to be done there?

I am aware of that; it is about to be enlarged.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Licensing Court of the Comal District of Argyllshire has granted certificates extending the hours of closing during June, July, and August in Dunoon, Sandbank, and Innellan beyond the hour prescribed by the Licensing Authority under the Public Houses, Hours of Closing (Scotland) Act, 1887, namely, "the Justices of the Peace of the county in Quarter Session assembled"; whether he is aware that in a case arising out of a similar conflict of alleged authority between the Justices in Quarter Session of Forfarshire and the Licensing Court of Arbroath District, it was decided by the Court of Session that District Courts cannot override a decision of the Justices in Quarter Sessions as to the hour of closing; and whether he will take steps to call the attention of Clerks of the Peace to the definition of the Licensing Authority under the Public Houses, Hours of Closing (Scotland) Act, 1887, as interpreted by the Court of Session in the case referred to?

I am informed that the facts stated in the question are correct. I will direct the attention of the Clerk of the Peace of the county where this irregularity occurred to the decision referred to; but I am afraid I cannot undertake to supply all such officials with the decisions of the Supreme Courts which may affect their particular duties.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee appointed by the Secretary for Scotland to inquire into the salaries, &c., of Scotch Prison Officials have made any Report; whether the Government intend to take any steps to remove the distinctions which at present exist between the English and Scotch prison officials; and whether the Government, for the information of Parliament, will explain why higher salaries are paid to English warders and guards than they pay to Scotch officers?

said: The hon. Member will allow me to answer the question. The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The Report has been presented. With reference to the second and third paragraphs, I can only repeat what I have said in answer to similar questions already put to me, that it is impossible in reply to a question to compare the various considerations that justify the rates of salaries in each particular case.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will put this Report on the Table of the House?

That is a question the hon. Member should address to my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate. Perhaps he will give notice of it?

I will put the question on Thursday.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received complaints regarding the want of telegraphic communication betwixt Lochaline and Drimnin; and could he see his way to accept a much smaller guarantee than that last asked for an extension to Drimnin?

An application for a telegraph office at Drimnin was made by the hon. Member for Argyllshire. The extension would cost about £270. The annual expenses would be about £50, and the revenue, it is believed, would not be more than about £5. It is, therefore, impossible to accept a smaller guarantee than £50.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now aware of the unsanitary state of Magherafelt Courthouse; whether his attention has been called to the report in the Irish News of the 2nd instant of the emphatic protest made by County Court Judge Neligan, Q.C., on the previous day, as to the "abominable stench" and "most dangerous draughts" which sweep through the Courthouse; whether the learned Judge stated on the previous Monday—

"He was obliged to adjourn the Court before he had sat for an hour and to send home all the people who were in attendance as suitors and witnesses, and inflict on them the inconvenience and loss"

The attention of the responsible officer shall be called to the matter, and he will, I hope, take the necessary steps to have the Courthouse put into a sanitary condition.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the subsidy of £5,000 voted towards the improvement in the breed of horses in Ireland, whether he will state how much of it has been so applied, and what has been done with the balance, if any; whether he is aware that there is no person from the Division of South Down on the Committee appointed under the scheme for the County of Down, and that none of the four registered stallions selected for the county ever visit any place within the district of South Down; and whether, in view of the fact that the population of South Down is chiefly made up of small farmers who stand in need of such facilities as are offered under this scheme, steps will be taken to give this division of the county the benefit of the scheme?

The hon. Member does not specify any particular year; but I presume he desires to know how the annual grant of £5,000 for improving the breed of horses and cattle in Ireland is allotted?

This year.

I cannot give the figures for this year, because the expenditure is not yet completed, but I find by the published accounts of the Royal Dublin Society, that their expenditure in this regard during their last completed year, ended 31st December, 1891, was as follows:—By amount paid to owners of horses, service premiums, fees, &c., £3,290 5s.; by expenses of local committees, £119 17s. 2d.; by service premiums for bulls, £1,201 18s.; by prizes for mares at local inspections, £955; by purchase of pony stallion, £150; by Stallion Show, Dublin, £198 6s. 5d.; by auditor's fee, £2 2s.; by balance in bank, £492 1s.3d.; total, £6,409 9s. 10d. The reply to the second paragraph appears to be in the affirmative. It is stated that the benefits of the scheme were offered equally to all parts of the country; but no stallions were tendered for registration for service in South Down; accordingly there is no registered stallion in that district.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that there is no representative from South Down on the Committee?

I presume that the Committee is appointed by the Royal Dublin Society.

They appointed no person from South Down.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that last year the sum of £960 was given in prizes to brood mares in 16 districts in Ireland; and whether the Royal Dublin Society have discontinued the grant this season; and, if so, for what reasons?

I am informed that the sum of £955 was given in prizes in Ireland for farmers' brood mares in 1891. The Royal Dublin Society have discontinued these prizes this year, and given the money instead to farmers in part payment of the fees for the service of thoroughbred registered stallions. It is believed that the expenditure of the money in this way will confer greater benefits upon the farmers.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of a case in which Mrs. Perry, the widow of a land agent who was recently shot when driving to Mass at Tulla, County Clare, was awarded by the Grand Jury £20 as compensation for a horse which was shot at the time of the outrage, but in which the claim for £1,000 for his injuries served by Mr. Perry, before he died a lingering death from his wounds, was disallowed on the ground that the Presentment Sessions had no power to award compensation to the representative of a murdered person; and whether the decision that there is now no power to award such compensation was correct; and, if so, whether he will consider if he will introduce a measure to give power to award compensation in such cases?

In the event of the Government deciding to introduce a Bill for the purpose of awarding any such compensation, I hope it will include the families of men shot down at Mitchelstown, Youghal, and Tipperary under orders from the Irish Government.

My attention has been called to the report of the case in question. There is under the existing law no power to award compensation in such cases. The Government do not propose to introduce legislation dealing with the question.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it was the widow of Captain Plunket got compensation—an annual allowance?

I do not think that has anything to do with this question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having in view the repugnance to the infliction of the indignity on children being born in prison, and the danger to the lives of both mothers and children, he will consider the advisability of so altering the Prison Rules as to permit the removal of all female prisoners to a public hospital during confinement?

I know of no sufficient reason for changing the present practice. A pregnant woman is always released from prison where, in the opinion of the medical officer, her confinement in prison would be attended with risk to her life or to that of the child. Women confined in prison are attended to in the prison infirmary, where they find as much care and medical skill as in a public hospital. It is not so much the place of birth as the conviction of the mother which involves what the hon. Member describes as an indignity.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a very strong opinion found expression in the Press in relation to a recent case against the indignity of a child being born in gaol? Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what class those women belonged to whom he referred on a former occasion as having been released under these circumstances?

I mentioned twelve, I think, and these all belonged to the humbler classes, women convicted of theft and such offences. I am quite aware of the feeling to which the hon. Member alludes; but, as I have said, I think the conviction of the mother is more prejudicial to the future of the child than the mere place of birth.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether amongst the telegraphists requisitioned for special duty at the last Epsom Spring Meeting, were two from Derby, one from Northampton, one from Leeds, two from Leicester, three from Birmingham, three from Brighton, one from Manchester, two from Bristol, and two from Southampton, most of whom were employed on special duty, and paid at special rates during the ensuing week; will he explain why it was necessary to bring telegraphists such a lengthened distance, and at such a large additional cost, when the staff of the Central Office in London were available; and whether he will see his way, in justice to the clerks at the Central Telegraph Office, and with a view to economy, to supply the staff at special events from the nearest centre?

The arrangements made for the service in question were those which were deemed most convenient and economical, and no question of justice or injustice arises in connection with them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the protest against the election of Miss McGifford as teacher in the Down- patrick Workhouse, forwarded by eleven of the Poor Law Guardians to the Local Government Board on Saturday, 30th April; whether he is aware that the Roman Catholic children in Downpatrick Workhouse are in a proportion of five to one of any other denomination, and that, there being no Catholic official in the Workhouse, the Catholic Guardians claimed the right to have a Catholic teacher appointed; that Lord de Ros, a Protestant, in voting for the Catholic applicant (Miss Dixon), said "he voted for her because he believed the claim of the Catholics was a strong one," and the Hon. Somerset Ward, a Protestant, said "he voted for her because she was best qualified for the position"; and whether, considering that the voting was equal and the Chairman gave his casting vote for the Protestant, he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter, with a view of having the present election annulled?

The Local Government Board for Ireland have received a representation of the nature mentioned in the first paragraph. It appears that of the 21 children at present in the Workhouse school, 15 are Roman Catholics and 6 are of other denominations. I have no official information in regard to the observations attributed to the two Guardians mentioned. The Chairman of a Board of Guardians has no casting vote; but the Chairman gave the vote to which he was entitled as a Guardian to Miss McGifford. As the proceedings at the election were legal and formal, and as the inquiries of the Local Government Board in regard to the elected teacher are satisfactory, there is no ground for interference on the part of that Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what number of prisoners in Irish prisons sentenced to imprisonment after conviction on indictment were, on the 30th April, 1892, wearing prison clothes, and what number were permitted to wear their own clothes?

With reference to this question, I find that since the alteration was made in the prison rules in 1889, 179 prisoners have applied for, and been granted, permission to wear their own clothes. There were in the year ended 31st March, 1890, 105 applications; 31st March, 1891, 58 applications; 31st March, 1892, 14 applications; and in the month of April, 1892, two applications; making a total of 179. But by the wording of the question, the question is limited to "prisoners sentenced to imprisonment after conviction on indictment." Of such prisoners there were in custody in Irish prisons on 30th April, 1892, 471. From these prisoners only one application was received, and it was granted.

Who was that one—a fraudulent stockbroker?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there was only one prisoner? Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Report from the Irish Prison Commissioners before the House stating whether the relaxation in the case of this one prisoner was made on account of the nature of the crime or the social position of the prisoner?

I have no objection to lay the Report on the Table, but I imagine the answer would be that neither of the reasons stated by the right hon. Member was the right one.

Then I would ask the reason why in this case the Prison Rules were relaxed?

The right hon. Member appears not to be aware of the Rule with respect to which relaxation is granted. I stated it at length recently. The Rule provides that permission may be granted where the Prison Commissioners are of opinion, expressed in writing, that the wearing of the prison clothes is not desirable for the purposes of health and cleanliness. I stated further that in all cases where application had been made under this Rule permission had been granted.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that before the Rule was made, while the Belfast forgers were allowed to wear their own clothes when conveyed after conviction from Dublin to Derry, Irish Members imprisoned were stripped naked?

I do not see how the remark of the hon. Member arises out of the question. I am asked as to what has happened since the Rule has; been in force.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what sums are now available in the hands of the Board of Works for such advances as are authorised to be made to companies and occupiers of land by the 31st section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act of 1881?

The amount now available is £680,000.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General why, since the acceleration of the arrival and delivery of the English mails in Belfast, there is no delivery of local letters outside a half mile radius from the General Post Office from the first delivery at 7 a.m. until the delivery at 4.30 p.m.; and why letters received from Londonderry and the North at the General Post Office at 11.15 a.m. are not delivered outside the half mile radius until 4.30 p.m.?

The present delivery of letters at Belfast are at 7 a.m. (general); 10.20. a.m. (general); 12.30. p.m. (restricted); 4.15. (general); 8 p.m. (general). The 10.20 a.m. delivery includes local letters as well as the English and Scotch night mail letters viâ Holyhead and Stranraer. The 12.30. p.m. delivery is restricted to the central portion of the town and letters, therefore, received at 11.15. a.m. for places outside that portion have hitherto been delivered at 4.15 p.m. A revision is now under consideration for making the 12.30 delivery general like the rest, and the above letters will then be distributed by it.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the increase of clerical force of three second-class telegraphists, sanctioned in July, 1891, in the Londonderry Telegraph Department, has not yet been carried out; whether complaints have reached him that the present staff is inadequate to do the work required of it; and whether the telegraphic business of the district suffers delay in consequence?

No such sanction was given in July, 1891, but I lately decided to add three to the staff in question, which will be done as soon as the necessary forms have been gone through. No complaints from the public of unsatisfactory service have reached me.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, with reference to the improvement of the postal communication between Woodford and Whitegate, whether he is aware that the people of the district are of opinion that the additional cost of giving the extension required, would be amply covered by the increased number of letters which such extension would bring; and whether, considering the great inconvenience to the district of the present system, he will consider the desirability of giving the proposed extension a trial for at least one year?

I regret to say that the reports made to me show that the receipts would be altogether incommensurate with the cost, and I am therefore unable to give the service desired.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been called to the public scandal which has been caused by its having recently become generally known in the neighbourhood of Ross that the Reverend Edward Burdett Hawkshaw, the Chairman of the Ross Bench of Justices, wrongfully assumed, during 18 years, the title and hood of a Master of Arts of Oriel College, Oxford, although he was in fact only a Bachelor of Arts, and so conducted the services, and administered the Sacraments of the Church; whether he is aware that the Bishop of Hereford discovered this upon the collation of the Reverend Edward Burdett Hawkshaw to the prebendal stall of Nonnington, in Hereford Cathedral, for which a Bachelor of Arts is not eligible, and compelled him to take the degree of Master of Arts; whether one of the canons of the Church prescribes the punishment of suspension for the offence of conducting the services and administering the Sacraments in a University hood of a higher degree than that which the clergyman possesses, and such an offence is also punishable under the statutes of the University of Oxford; and whether if, upon inquiry, these facts are found to be correct, the name of the Reverend Edward Burdett? Hawkshaw will be removed from the Commission of the Peace?

I have no information as to the various allegations in the question. I have drawn the attention of the Lord Chancellor to them, and I learn from him that he has caused inquiry to be made.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Queen's Regulations for 1881, which allowed a soldier, on conscientious grounds, to send his children to a certified efficient civil school instead of the regimental or garrison schools, have been altered this year, so as to deprive the Catholic soldiers and their children of religious liberty in the matter of education, and compel all warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men to send their children to the school of the corps or garrison, except where, "with a view to obtaining a higher class education," the children are permitted by the General Officer commanding to attend a civil school?

The Army Order referred to was issued two years ago, and it does require that soldiers shall send their children to the corps or garrison school. It was found that their going to civil schools did, to an appreciable amount, involve the risk of introducing infectious disease into barracks; but the main reason for the order was that, as soldiers frequently move from station to station, it was indispensable that their children should be educated on a uniform system. Army schools being all under one management secured this, while the latitude allowed to the managers of civil schools resulted in children taught in one school being frequently quite out of touch with the course in the school of another place. Army schools are altogether undenominational, and every facility is afforded for religious instruction being imparted by the ministers of the denomination to which the parents belong.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will take into consideration the very serious inconvenience and loss resulting to the people of the towns of Castlefin, Killygordon, Ballybofey, and Stranorlar, in County Donegal, from the fact that the English and Dublin mails which arrive in Strabane at 10.45 a.m. are not despatched from that place till 5.20 p.m., although a train leaves Strabane at 11.20, calling at all the above-mentioned towns, and actually conveying mails to places beyond?

This matter has already been under consideration, and arrangements are being made for the establishment of a mail to the places named by the 11.20 a.m. train from Strabane.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the recent dismissal of the female teacher Miss Anderson, and the illegal appointment of the Chairman of the Board of Garlagie School, have created great dissatisfaction in the parish of Skene, Aberdeenshire; and whether the Scotch Education Department have received a petition, largely signed by ratepayers, protesting against recent proceedings in Garlagie School, and praying that the Department may end the difficulty by themselves appointing a new Chairman of the Board?

I understand that the recent dismissal of Miss Anderson, and the appointment of the Chairman of the Skene School Board, have been discussed in that parish. The Department have received a petition asking that another person than the present Chairman of the Board should be nominated as a member of the Board; and they have also received a petition from ratepayers in favour of the present Chairman continuing in office. As at present informed, I do not see that the case is one which calls for the interference of the Department.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, pending the receipt of the Bill passed by the Queensland Legislature for allowing the re-introduction of South Sea island labour to that colony, Her Majesty's Government will secure that the traffic shall not be re-opened; whether he will engage that the Papers relating thereto shall be laid upon the Table of the House before the Royal Assent is given to the said Bill; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of Lord C. Scott, the Admiral of the Station, and that of Captain Davies, who has had a long experience in the Polynesian Islands?

Since the hon. Member put his question on the Paper the. Secretary of State has telegraphed to the Governor to ask whether he had assented to the Bill, and whether it is in operation. If it has been assented to, Her Majesty has only the power of disallowing the Act which has become law. The Secretary of State has further telegraphed that he trusts that the Colonial Government, if it is practicable, will delay issuing the licences under the Act until he has received and considered the measure and the safeguards with which it is doubtless surrounded. The Reports of the naval officers mentioned in the question shall be given with other Papers bearing upon the subject. It may be satisfactory to the House that I should mention the fact that Polynesian labourers have been introduced under the existing regulations to Queensland in increasing numbers up to the beginning of last year, and I may state that in 1890, 2,459 labourers were so introduced, and that since the beginning of 1885 no case of kidnapping or of serious infringement of the regulations has, as far as we know, been brought under notice. It may, therefore, fairly be assumed that the regulations are sufficient if properly watched and enforced. And to this end the attention of both Her Majesty's Government and the Queensland Government will be steadily directed.

I wish to know whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been called to the statement which appeared in the Daily News of Saturday, stating that the Melbourne Trades Council had resolved to appeal to Her Majesty the Queen to veto the Bill recently passed by the Queensland Government, promoting the re-introduction of South Sea island labour into the colony?

No, Sir; my attention has not been called to the statement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an injury to a constable, while acting as a fireman, would be an injury received in the execution of his duty, so as to entitle him to a grant out of the Police Pension Fund, under the scale applicable to injuries received by a constable in the execution of his duty; and whether, if such is not the case, he will consider the hardship which may often arise, especially in the case of constables who are engaged on distinct terms to act from time to time as firemen?

I am advised that except in cases where there is special provision on this subject in Local Acts—and there are many such Acts—a constable who is injured while acting as a fireman is not entitled to a grant out of the pension fund under the scale applicable to injuries received by a constable in the execution of his duty. With reference to the second paragraph of the question, my hon. Friend will bear in mind that a constable is still entitled to a pension or gratuity on the ordinary scale. He is, therefore, in a better position than a fireman, who is not a constable and who receives no pension except in cases where it is provided for in Local Acts.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the nature of the wayleave which prevents the opening of a telegraph station at Fenit, County Kerry, which is the port of Tralee; whether he is aware that fishing boats coming into the bay laden with fish have to send foot messengers seven miles to Tralee to get the light railway to run down a train to take off their freights of fish, in consequence of which unsatisfactory arrangement these freights of fish often miss connection with the Great Southern and Western Railway, and are damaged and sometimes destroyed; and whether, in view of the fact that the telegraph can be either taken along the main road from Tralee to Fenit, or along the line of railway, and further that the guarantee required by the Post Office has been long since obtained, a telegraph office at Fenit will be opened at once?

The difficulty is to come to terms with the Railway Company for the attachment of the wires to their poles, but I hope that this will be got over. To erect new poles along the road would cost much more. I do not know the circumstances mentioned in the second paragraph, but I know that the telegraph is much wanted.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General what guarantee was required by the Post Office for the opening of the telegraph station at Ardfert, County Kerry; and whether the guarantors have ever been called upon to make good any deficiency in the receipts of that office?

The Telegraph Office at Ardfert was established about 20 years ago. At that time the system of guarantees had not been introduced.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in the erection of the labourers' cottages in the County Kildare portion of the Edenderry Union, the schemes for which have been approved and sanctioned more than two years since by the Privy Council?

The erection of 32 cottages in the Edenderry Union has been authorised. Of these two have been erected, and a tender has been accepted for the building of one more. The Guardians have repeatedly advertised for tenders for building the remainder of the cottages, but considered those received to be too high. New plans for the further contract will, in all probability, be considered on the 14th instant.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will state to the House the terms of Reference to the Departmental Committee on the Ordnance Survey; and whether its Proceedings and Report will be made public?

The Departmental Committee to which the hon. Member refers has been appointed to inquire into a Report on the present condition of the Ordnance Survey, and especially to consider: (1) What steps should be taken to expedite the completion and publication of the new or revised one-inch map, with or without hills, of the British Isles; (2) what permanent arrangement should be made for the continuous revision and speedy publication of the maps (1/500, towns) 25 inches, six inches, and one inch scales; (3) whether the maps as at present issued satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public in regard to style of execution, form, information conveyed, and price; and whether any improvement can be made in the catalogue and indices. I propose to lay the Report and Proceedings of the Committee upon the Table for publication as a Parliamentary Paper.

Will the management of the Survey and the character of the managing staff be included?

No, Sir.

Does the inquiry extend to Ireland?

Yes.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in reference to his statement on 22nd February last, he has now received the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the grievances of those employed in the Ordnance Survey, and will lay it upon the Table?

had notice of the following question:—To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Report of the Departmental Committee inquiring into the grievances of the Civil Servants of the Ordnance Survey has yet been completed; and, if so, whether the Report, together with the decision arrived at in relation thereto by the Board of Agriculture, will be laid upon the Table of the House before the Vote on the Estimates for the Survey comes under discussion?

I will answer the question of the hon. Member for Southampton at the same time. I have received the Report of the Departmental Committee to which the hon. Member refers, and the recommendations it contains are now under consideration. I hope to be able to announce the decision before the Vote for the Survey in the Estimates comes under discussion, and in the meantime I will lay the Report on the Table.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whet her he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing among Welsh scholars, geologists, and others, with regard to the inaccuracy and incompleteness of the place-names in the Ordnance Survey maps of Wales; and whether he will take steps to secure the aid and co-operation of Welsh scholars to ensure accuracy in the nomenclature of these maps?

I was not aware of the existence of the dissatisfaction to which the hon. Member refers, and I am informed that every Welsh name appearing on the Ordnance Survey maps has, as a matter of fact, received the sanction of a competent Welsh scholar. I am quite aware, however, of the difficult and delicate nature of the subject, and will endeavour to ascertain whether the existing arrangements are capable of improvement. The question, I think, might with advantage be considered by the Departmental Committee now sitting, and I will bring the matter under the consideration of that Committee.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in expressing his willingness to make certain concessions to the Gibraltar ratepayers, the Secretary of State for the Colonies made those concessions dependent upon the ratepayers assenting to the Chairman of the Sanitary Board being appointed by the Governor, and to the office of Engineer to the Board being held by the Colonial Engineer, ex officio, until the new drainage and waterworks are completed?

The Secretary of State informed the deputation of Gibraltar ratepayers that he was willing to make certain concessions on the understanding that further opposition to the recent Order in Council would be withdrawn; but that he could not agree to the repeal of the provisions of the Order vesting the appointment of the Chairman of the Sanitary Board in the Governor, and combining the offices of Colonial Engineer and Engineer to the Sanitary Commissioners. He intimated, however, that the question of the separation of those offices might, if thought necessary, be again brought forward after the completion of the new drainage and waterworks.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Engineer at Gibraltar, when acting as Engineer to the Sanitary Commissioners, was in 1886 removed from the latter office by the Governor, which decision was approved and confirmed by the then Secretary of State; and whether he will state the reasons given for removing him from such office?

In 1886 the then Governor of Gibraltar recommended the separation of the two offices referred to, and his recommendation was approved by the then Secretary of State. The reasons assigned by the Governor were that, in his opinion, the duties of the two offices were rather conflicting, and their combination led to inconvenience, and that he was not satisfied with the manner in which the duties of Engineer to the Sanitary Commissioners were performed by the Colonial Engineer. These reasons have been fully re-considered, and the Secretary of State has arrived at the present decision with the full concurrence of the present Governor, and in accordance with the recommendation of Major Tullock.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will inform the House of the decision the Secretary of State arrived at, on the circumstances placed before him, with regard to the conduct of the official at present holding the post of Colonial Engineer at Gibraltar, which has on two occasions—1885 and 1890—been brought officially to the notice of the Secretary of State for the Colonies?

On the first of the two occasions referred to the Secretary of State, Lord Derby, arrived at the conclusion that a charge made against the officer in question, while acting in another capacity, had not been proved. On the second occasion the Secretary of State directed him to be reproved for an act of irregularity, not connected with his office and not derogatory to his character.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is a fact that, after the Colonial Estimates (Gibraltar) for 1892 were published for general information, a Supplementary Estimate was prepared but not made public, by which, among other things, the salary of the Colonial Secretary was increased; and whether the community of Gibraltar, which contributes nearly £60,000 a year by local taxation, has any voice in the expenditure thereof?

The salary of the Colonial Secretary was increased by direction of the Secretary of State from 23,060 pesetas to 25,000 pesetas—roughly £65—when the Estimates for 1892 were sanctioned, as he considered it desirable that the remuneration of that officer should be placed on a level with that of other officials at Gibraltar whose duties were not of so responsible a character. The revenue of Gibraltar derived from taxation, other than port dues, which are paid by the shipping, amounts to between £14,000 and £15,000 a year, of which a considerable part is paid by the garrison. The hon. Member has probably included in the £60,000 port dues, rents of Crown property, postal revenue, and other items which cannot properly be classed as taxation. The public expenditure is under the direct control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is a fact that a Government employee, on full pay of the active list, is also employed by the Anglo-Egyptian Bank in Gibraltar as manager of its Gibraltar Branch; and whether the circumstance has been previously brought to the notice of the Colonial Office, and what was the decision of the Secretary of State thereon?

The circumstance referred to was brought to the notice of the Secretary of State. The gentleman alluded to undertook the joint managership of the Branch of the Anglo-Egyptian Bank as an incident to the administration of a trust estate, and could not relieve himself of it without injury to those for whom he is trustee; and the Secretary of State, upon the strong recommendation of the Governor, decided in these circumstances to allow the arrangement to continue as a wholly exceptional case, by which the gentleman in question gives his services to the Bank after office hours.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is proposed by his Department to take any further steps to promote the acceleration of the Cork and American mails viâ Cork?

As I have already stated, this matter will be re-considered along with other mail improvements which are desired in various parts of the country, and which were not provided for in the present Estimates because the expenses of the Department had already been largely increased.

Is it a fact that it is only a matter of £3,000?

It is only a matter of a few thousands in the present case, but this case is joined to others.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Great Southern and Western Railway has expended upwards of £100,000 at Queenstown in the endeavour to provide proper accommodation for the landing of the mails at the railway. Seeing this is a matter of the greatest importance to Ireland will the Government endeavour to take steps to relieve the deadlock?

I cannot go further than I have done.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the Midland Railway Act (ch. xxxix.), 1889, which gives that Railway certain powers to acquire land in the Borough of St. Pancras, subject to a provision inserted (on representations made by the Home Office) placing restrictions on the Company in regard to displacing persons of the labouring classes; whether he is aware that, whilst large numbers of the inhabitants of the district have been evicted from their dwellings under this Act, to their inconvenience and to the consequent loss of the trade of the locality affected, no steps have up to the present been taken to re-construct artizans' dwellings under Clause 31 of this Act; and if he will cause inquiry to be made into the subject?

Under the Midland Railway Act of 1889, to which the hon. Member refers, the Railway Company only acquired power in the parish of St. Pancras to take a portion of the churchyard, and the statements in the question are not relevant to proceedings under that Act in the parish of St. Pancras. By the Midland Railway Act of 1890 the Company did take powers to acquire houses in the parish of St. Pancras in the occupation of the labouring classes, but the Company have not cleared, or caused to be cleared, any of the houses referred to, and have done nothing, and will do nothing, in that direction pending the erection of artizans' dwellings. In accordance with the Act, the Company have for this purpose submitted a scheme which, after careful examination, I caused to be amended in certain particulars. Thus amended, the scheme has been submitted by the Company for my approval, and I have every hope that proceedings to give effect to it will be commenced at an early date. I am not aware of any circumstances calling for inquiry.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, from his reply, I understand rightly that all the clearances have been done by private individuals, and not by the Midland Railway Company?

That is exactly what I intended to convey.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the notices issued to the Volunteers attending the Easter Manœuvres in Chatham last month, stating—

"Volunteers in uniform will be made honorary members of the following Clubs during their visit on furnishing their names and rank to the respective Secretaries: Liberal Club, Castle Hill, Rochester; Conservative Club, Star Hill, Rochester; Workmen's Institute, Chatham; Reform Club, Military Road, Chatham";

Even assuming the facts to be as stated in the question, I am unable to see that there has been any violation of the law in reference to the sale of intoxicating liquors.

Are these Clubs allowed to sell to anyone?

The question states, and I believe accurately, that Volunteers were made honorary members of the Clubs. That was undoubtedly a bonâ fide proceeding in this case. These honorary members are as much entitled to buy intoxicating liquors as are members of the Diplomatic Corps to buy a bottle of wine at the Athenæum.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there are a large number of quasi Clubs in London where the entrance fee is purely nominal, and where the members entering are practically elected by the hall porter? Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to these Clubs, and, in the interests of temperance, will he cause inquiry to be made?

Did the right hon. Gentleman quite grasp the fact that these honorary members were admitted without their names being submitted as honorary members? and does he really mean to compare that with the action of the Athenæum or any other London Clubs?

Certainly the Volunteers in the Clubs were in uniform. I do not think it is within the range of practical possibility that a toper should provide himself with a uniform in order to get drink.

Is it possible for persons to be made honorary members of a Club without their names being inscribed in the books in some way?

That is a question for the secretary of the Club.

Is it possible for any of these small Clubs to make the whole British Army members?

I tried in my original answer to draw a distinction between a bonâ fide Club and nominal membership of bogus Clubs, such as those referred to by my hon. Friend behind me. The distinction is one of fact, and in some cases may not be very easy to draw, but in this case the Clubs were really within their right.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any means of inquiry as to the number of bogus Clubs at present existing in London?

I have at various times made inquiry not only in London, but in other parts of the country. If the hon. Member will supply me with a satisfactory definition of bogus Clubs, I shall be extremely grateful to him.

Would policemen in uniform be allowed to become honorary members?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the seven-sixtieths hitherto added to the pensions allowed to medical officers has been withdrawn; and, if so, from what date such change would come into effect?

In the case of all appointments made to professional offices in the Civil Service since 30th November, 1888, the Treasury Minutes entitling the holders to retired allowances above the rate of one-sixtieth of the salary for each complete year of service have been suspended; and if Parliament should take away the power to grant such special rates of pension, no officer appointed since the date named will receive on retirement the benefit of additional years.

I beg to ask the Attorney General what number of judgment summonses were heard before His Honour Judge Abdy at Waltham Abbey on Wednesday, 20th April, and what number of committals were made, and the reasons for each committal, and what time was occupied by the business; whether he is aware that a carpenter named Field was committed by the Judge for six weeks unless the whole of the debt, over £2, was paid in 14 days, although the evidence showed that Field had been out of work, and was still out of work at the time of hearing, and what evidence, if any, there was of means; whether his attention has also been drawn to the case of a debtor named Matthews, a machinist at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, who was committed for six weeks in default of paying two instalments on a judgment order amounting to £4, although he had paid £2 on such order, and during the month of March it was proved that Matthews' wages since such payment of £2 were £1, 15s., 16s., 6s., and an additional sum of 12s.; whether he is aware that Matthews' debt was for costs in a libel action, in which he had succeeded in getting a verdict of £100 and costs against the publisher of such libel, but had failed against the printer, and that Matthews had failed to get a farthing either of such damages or costs; and on what grounds such a heavy order was made against Matthews, and the reasons for his committal, or what evidence of means was given other than those stated?

I am informed by the learned County Court Judge that on the occasion in question there were four judgment summonses for hearing, occupying about twenty minutes. In two of the cases the defendants bore the names mentioned in the hon. Member's question, and one of them had been previously heard by the learned Judge, on which occasion both parties had been represented by professional advisers. In both the cases the learned Judge was satisfied by the evidence before him that the defendants had had, since the date of the judgments, means with which they might have satisfied the debts, but had neglected to do so.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the National Debt Commissioners have been authorised by the Treasury to give Consols in exchange for Land Stock to the extent of five millions; and, if so, when the exchange will be made?

The Treasury have authorised the National Debt Commissioners to give Consols in exchange for Land Stock to the amount of five millions. The exchange will be made from time to time whenever Stock is presented. I regret to say, though nearly half a million of advances have been applied for under the Act of 1891, there is no immediate chance of Land Stock being required unless special machinery is provided for clearing away the arrears under the Ashbourne Act, which are still outstanding.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Land Stock is to be at the rate of 100 or 96 according to legal decision?

IS it proposed to take any steps to bring up those arrears under the Ashbourne Act? I understand that there are cases as far back as 1887 which have not yet been settled?

As to the question asked by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) notice must be given, as I am not familiar with the legal point raised. With regard to the other question submitted by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. W. Russell), my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant is engaged considering what steps can be taken to deal with this matter.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say at what rate the National Debt Commissioners will treat the Stock which an Irish Judge said is only worth 96?

The learned Judge would not say so to-day. To-day the price of Consols is 97, not 96. Whatever the price is, Stock for Stock is the basis on which exchange will take place. The arrangement is made perfectly clear by the Act.

Are we to understand, then, that for 100 only 96 or 97 are to be given?

A nominal £100 of Consols will be given for a nominal £100 of Land Stock.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has yet arranged to appoint the Committee to consider the question of Parliamentary reporting?

I hope the Committee will be appointed in a day or two.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which has passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Newfoundland, respecting the proposed Convention recently agreed to between the Governments of the United States and of Newfoundland?

The Report will be issued as soon as possible.

Arising out of that question, I beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can inform me if the Convention between the Newfoundland Government and the United States has received the assent of Her Majesty's Government?

That is a question for the Foreign Office.

I give notice that I shall put the question down to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any Petitions have been presented under the Municipal Corporations Acts, 1859 and 1882, for the alteration of the number or boundaries of the wards of a borough; and, if so, whether he can state the names of the boroughs by which such Petitions have been presented?

I think my hon. Friend will find the information he desires in the Index to the Statutory Rules and Orders in force in January, 1891.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that the police, hitherto stationed in the old barracks on the estate of Sir George Colthurst, Baronet, in Ballyvourneg, County Cork, have been removed from thence to a new hut at Ballymakeery, outside the estate; and, if so, for what reason?

The Constabulary authorities report that the change mentioned in the question has been rendered necessary owing to the barracks being damp and unhealthy. I understand there is no other house available.

Is it not the case that the police have been removed in consequence of being boycotted by Mr. Jeremiah Hegarty, of Millstreet, who refused to give them the right to take turf on the estate?

I think the police are well able to take care of themselves.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that these policemen, who have been taking charge of the office of Mr. Hegarty, have repeatedly requested the Dublin Castle authorities to relieve them from such duties on account of the friction existing between them and Mr. Hegarty.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having considered the attitude assumed by the Governors of the Cork Lunatic Asylum against the Board of Control and against the decision given as regards visiting physicians, he purposes taking any steps to prevent further trouble in the interests of the Institution in question?

The Board of Control report that every effort has been made to discharge the duties which are by law cast upon them without giving any reasonable cause for friction with the Governors of the Cork Asylum.

Will any steps be taken?

I think not.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Regulations of the Metropolitan Police Force prohibit constables from recording their votes in Vestry or other elections while on duty; whether constables were punished recently for voting in a Vestry election at Walthamstow, although they were on duty in the immediate vicinity of the polling station, and were not therefore absent from their beat; and whether he will cause such an alteration of the Police Regulations as will allow all constables entitled to the franchise to exercise it without fear of punishment?

The answer to the first and second paragraphs of the question is in the negative. Circumstances might arise which would prevent constables recording their votes at the polling station at which they would be entitled to vote, but in such cases the constables have the benefit of the 2nd section of the Police Disability Removal Act of 1887. As there are no Police Regulations prohibiting constables from voting while on duty, and as no constable or constables have been punished for voting no action on my part is necessary.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intend to propose any additional grant this year to the English Colleges?

I regret that the margin of revenue over expenditure in the present year does not permit me to propose any addition to the grant for the English Colleges. I hope, however, that another year it may be possible to make an addition to the grants.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether an equivalent increase will be made to the Scotch Colleges?

I do not think that the footing of the Scotch Colleges is analogous to that of the English.

I beg to ask whether the ordinary business of the House will be suspended to-night at eleven o'clock in order to afford an opportunity for the discussion of the various Motions with regard to the Scotch University Commission?

I am not aware that there has been any change since my last answer to a question on this subject. What I said was that I quite recognised the desirability of, if possible, commencing the discussion at an earlier hour than twelve, but I could not promise to do so unless we made good progress with the Small Holdings Bill. If we do that, I shall be prepared to move the adjournment of the Committee soon after eleven o'clock. But the hon. Gentleman will see that the Government have only power over the Government Orders of the Day; and that, unless there be an understanding that the forty odd Bills down in the names of private Members should not be taken, there will be an almost insuperable difficulty in the way.

There might have been a notice of Motion on the Paper to the effect that the subject of these Ordinances be taken after the first Order of the Day, because it is absurd to suppose that we can run the gauntlet of 66 Orders of the Day with any prospect of getting to the discussion of the Scotch Universities question after twelve o'clock. I therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he could not now make some other arrangement?

If good progress is made with the Small Holdings Bill I should be willing to stop that Bill on an Evening Sitting in order that the Scotch Universities question may be discussed. That, however, seems a course hardly practicable to-night. But perhaps hon. Members would prefer a brief discussion at the Morning Sitting to-morrow, and in that case we might adjourn consideration of the Small Holdings Bill at twenty to six o'clock. There would, in that case, be a discussion of at least an hour.

On this subject I would suggest that it is possible, with the consent of the House, to now make a Motion postponing other Orders in favour of this. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will tell me whether I am in order?

If it is the general wish of the House the First Lord of the Treasury can doubtless make such a Motion.

Well, with the consent of the House, I shall be glad to move—

"That the several Notices of Motion relating to the Scottish Universities Commission Ordinances have precedence this day of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion subsequent to the first Order of the Day."

Do we understand that the arrangement holds good that as soon as the Small Holdings Bill is through Committee the Irish Local Government Bill will be taken?

That is the view of the Government. The only conceivable doubt is with reference to the Budget proposals, which have been postponed partly because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) was not able to be in his place, and partly because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) could not make it convenient to be present at the beginning of this week. With that exception the Order will stand as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Irish Education Bill will follow the Irish Local Government Bill?

I should like to ask whether Supply will be taken this Session?

Yes, Sir, I hope so. As to the Education Bill, I can give no answer respecting that until we see how we are getting on with the Bills I have already mentioned.

I beg to propose the following Amendment:—

In page 1, after line 13, insert—"And the Local Government Board may, by a Provisional Order, authorise a County Council to take compulsorily any land referred to in such Order for any term not exceeding 99 years, at a rent and subject to terms and conditions to be determined in case of difference by arbitration in the manner prescribed for determining a question of disputed compensation by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending the same, which shall apply as if such compulsory taking for a term of years were a purchase of land otherwise than by agreement."

Probably the hon. Member is aware that the Committee has already discussed the question of compulsory purchase, and has negatived the proposal. There is no need, therefore, to examine that subject again in detail. I cannot see that the Crofters Act and the Irish Act, to which the hon. Member has referred, afford any precedent whatever in support of this Amendment, which is one the Government are unable to agree to. It is obvious that its effect would be to place the landlord at a great disadvantage if he should desire to realise his property.

I hope the Committee will not refuse to accept the present proposal. It is of less magnitude than the previous one, and can be carried out without serious inconvenience to the owners of land generally. If it were proposed to give the County Councils power to purchase land compulsorily, it might be argued that they would render themselves liable for future contingencies for which future generations might refuse to be held accountable; but in a proposal of this kind, limited for 99 years, or for 40 or 50 years if the Committee wishes, the argument does not apply to the same extent. I do not see how the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman would meet those cases in which land in different parishes is in the hands of one man, who is either unwilling or unable to sell in spite of Lord Cairns' Act, or of any Act of a similar kind. There may be a difficulty in the case of such an owner, either in regard to his family or on account of his trustees, which might render it impossible for him to sell his land to the County Council. In such a case I think the landlord would welcome a provision of the kind now proposed.

I object to any proposal which directly or indirectly introduces the principle of compulsion. Hon. Members might, by referring to a book in the library of the House, see that out of 1,100,000 owners of land in England there are 850,000 persons holding less than one acre, and if they still further investigated the Return in question they would find that, in Lincolnshire—where I have the honour to represent a Division—there are no less than 30,000 holders of land, 15,000 holding from one to ten acres, and 10,000 holding from ten to fifty acres; and in one ringed fence in part of the Division out of 50,000 acres there is only one estate of 3,000 acres, the remaining 47,000 acres being in the hands of small owners and occupiers, men who, without the assistance of the State, have been enabled to purchase their own small holdings. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that the result in my Division of the attempt to introduce the idea of compulsion has been to consolidate the votes in my interest, and I can safely say that the same feeling is spreading throughout the county of Lincolnshire, the reason being that the introduction of the principle of compulsion creates a feeling of insecurity. It was only the other day that an hon. Member who represents a Division of Northampton narrated to me the following incident: At one of his meetings a man suggested that a certain field was wanted for the agricultural labourers, and that it should be taken by compulsion. The owner who was present jumped up and said, "I brought up a family on this field, which I purchased myself, and I do not see what right any one has to turn me out of it." Well, what affects the small owner affects the large owner. In one town in my Division, representing 5,000 acres, there are no less than 260 owners and occupiers, of whom 160 are owners, and the average ownership, or "take," is something like 30 to 40 acres of land. If the principle of compulsion were inserted in this Bill, any man from any part of the world could come and take up a lodging in tha town or village and claim that these small holders should have their land taken from them. But, Mr. Courtney, there is another point which seems to me of importance. Will not the security of investments in land be affected if it is known that the County Council may take any portion of land over any part of the estate without consulting the mortgagee? Who are these mortgagees? Rich as well as poor men. Take the first class. Nearly 50 per cent. of the securities of the Life Assurance Companies is in mortgages on land, directly or indirectly through Land Improvement Companies Let us go a step further, and take the Friendly Societies, and in particular the Manchester Order of Odd-fellows, with a capital of £7,500,000. More than half of that amount, which is the hard-earned savings of the working classes, is invested as mortgages on land. There are also schools, hospitals, charities, and trust money, all of which are affected by the security or insecurity of land. If their land is to be taken compulsorily, and the value of it thereby diminished, I scarcely think that the working classes throughout the country, who are members of those societies, will appreciate the efforts of hon. Members opposite. I merely mention these facts, because I consider them to be of considerable importance in the discussion of this matter; and I know, at the same time, from letters I have received, that I am speaking in the interest of a large number of small holders in my Division.

I think the hon. Member need not be alarmed at the prospect of small holdings being taken for the purpose of creating small holdings. In that part of Lincolnshire represented by the hon. Member (Colonel Eyre) there are a large number of small holdings. But that is an exceptional case.

Small holdings exist all over England.

I contend that the state of things in the Division represented by my hon. Friend is exceptional, and that in a great portion of England large ownership of land is the rule. In a great number of dis- tricts it is totally impossible for small owners to obtain land by purchase. My own belief is that in nearly half the rural parishes of England the land in each parish belongs substantially to a single owner. That is the conclusion I have arrived at after careful consideration, and it is in these cases that the Bill will operate to the best advantage, and it will be precisely in these cases where there will be the greatest difficulty in getting land for the purposes of this Bill. Now, the House has refused to give compulsory power to purchase in fee, which I should have much preferred to the present proposal. We have therefore to fall back on something less than that, and I think it would be better that there should be included in the Bill power to take land for 99 years than that there should be no compulsion at all, and for that reason I shall support the hon. Member's proposal.

The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment (Mr. Seale-Hayne), in introducing his remarks, stated that in the absence of the present Amendment the Bill would be nothing more than waste paper. My opinion is that, whatever may be the value of the Bill as it stands, this Amendment is worse than useless. The compulsory leasing of land will destroy the whole character of the Bill and make it inoperative, and, indeed, make it so unpopular with the ratepayers on account of the risks involved that it would be practically a dead letter. Suppose this Amendment were adopted, what would it mean? In the first place, there must be a valuation and the law costs therein involved; and then the Local Authority, which represents the ratepayers, would obtain possession of the land, with all the costs of compulsory acquisition, for a term of fifty, sixty, or, it may be, ninety-nine years. The result would be that a Local Authority might become responsible for large tracts of land—that is, for the payments under the lease, and at the same time have no security that the rents would be paid, or, indeed, that the land would not be thrown on their hands. Then, again, with respect to buildings, the proposal would put an end to all possibility of the small holder having any buildings on his land, for, of course, the Local Authority, under a forty or fifty years' lease, cannot put up the buildings, knowing that at the end of the lease they would simply go into the hands of the landlord, and the tenant will not put up buildings for the same reason. In fact, what is being advocated now has all the evils of the leasehold system, which I thought was regarded with feelings of aversion by hon. Members on this side of the House. But another difficulty presents itself. Suppose the Local Authority acquires five hundred acres on lease, the land will have to be adapted to the small tenants; there will have to be a water supply, and various other expenses will necessarily be incurred. What will happen at the end of the forty or fifty years, when the lease expires? Will the landlord require that the land shall be put back in the same condition as it was when he leased it, or will the Local Authority simply have to lose all outlay made upon the land, and the tenant have to sacrifice his proportion in the way of what he he has put into the land? I venture to say, in view of the expense that would be involved in acquiring land under this clause, and looking at the insecurity in the matter of compensation for improvements, and looking at the other drawbacks, that the clause would be a dead letter, and no Local Authority would be permitted by the ratepayers to involve itself in the enormous liability to loss this leasehold system would involve. The principle of this Bill is to create occupying owners of the land, and I hope the Government will stick to this principle. On the other hand, there is an attempt to turn this into a Bill for creating small tenants, and I hope the Government will not make this their leading idea, but will resist the Amendment, which I regard as most damaging to; the main intention of the Bill.

I agree with the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) in thinking that the leasehold system is a very unfortunate one, and I think it would be a deplorable thing if that system were introduced into agricultural holdings. But the Amendment now before the House has been proposed only to facilitate the letting of land on lease because we are unable to get facilities for taking the land in fee, and my hon. Friend's objections are valid to a certain extent, but only to a certain extent. The defect does not lie in the object of the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Seale-Hayne), but in the unfortunate obstinacy of the Government, who refuse to give facilities for the compulsory acquisition of the freehold of the land. But I do not think this Amendment can be set aside, for that reason, and I shall vote for it. The hon. Member for Bordesley says that the task will be thrown upon the Local Authority of ascertaining the value of the fee simple; but the same task would be thrown upon the Local Authority if they were to buy the fee simple. Then he says that buildings will not be erected on the land under the leasehold system by the tenants. Buildings are now erected under the leasehold system of 99 years, and even a shorter term. It is deplorable, no doubt, that the tenants cannot get better tenure; but they are obliged to content themselves with the best they can get. The main justification of this Amendment is that in the course of a very few years this Bill will be made of value by having inserted the compulsory clauses which are now omitted. And whether that is done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian or the Member for West Birmingham, whichever it may be that will dictate the course of policy in the near future—for I believe they are both agreed on the principle of compulsion—it is desirable that, in the interval between the present time and the insertion of these compulsory powers, we should have the power of leasing land, and the leaseholders will then very easily be turned into freeholders.

This Amendment raises two questions of the highest importance, but it raises them in a most inconvenient way. The two questions are whether there shall be compulsion in the application of the provisions of this Bill, and whether there should be leasing as well as, or instead of, the creation of absolute ownership. As regards the principle of compulsion, it appears to me that the House has already decided that question, because all of us agree that if compulsion is to be employed at all, it would be much better to employ it in creating ownerships than in creating leasehold tenancies. And, as the House has decided against compulsion in the former case à fortiori, it will so decide in this instance, and, in my opinion, will rightly decide. I would say to my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Reid), who anticipates, as I think I am a little inclined to do myself, that in the course of a few years the objections to compulsion will die away, and that some form of compulsion will be introduced, that his argument will not be answered by introducing now the inferior form of compulsion for leases. I am well aware that the former proposal was for the introduction of compulsion for the very important purpose of creating freeholds, and what this Amendment does is to raise the question in another form; but, having settled once the issue of compulsion, I think the majority of the House will have no doubt as to what course it ought to take. But I am very sorry that the Amendment is not moved in a form in which the House might have come to a decision upon it, as undoubtedly it contains another point quite separate and apart from compulsion, which is of the very greatest importance—namely, whether, as I have said, small holdings are to be created in the shape of tenancies as well as in the shape of ownerships. I must say it appears to me that there is a good deal of confusion on this point amongst hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian is not here.

He will be here.

I am glad of that, because the other night when he was speaking on the subject of compulsion he also spoke of leases, and he appealed to me saying he thought I might agree with him on that subject. I said I did not think I agreed with him at all; but I have come to the conclusion since, partly from having had a number of conversations with him, either that he did not explain very clearly what he meant, or that I was not intelligent enough to understand it. I now understand that what my right hon. Friend wishes is to introduce into this Bill, in addition to the provisions that are already there, provisions for enabling the Local Authority after it has obtained possession of the land to be let on perpetual feu. All I can say is that to that principle I should give my adherence.

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman himself has said this discussion is raised in a most inconvenient form. The question is the acquisition of land by the County Council, and not what is to be done by the County Council in respect of the land which has been obtained. The discussion on that point will arise on Clause 3. It will be well that this discussion should keep to the point at issue.

I did not raise this discussion.

I agree, Mr. Courtney, as to the inconvenience; but I must point out how I think my remarks are in order and arise naturally out of the Amendment in its present form. It declares that the County Council shall have power to obtain land on lease for 99 years, or on periods of less than 99 years; consequently it is perfectly evident that, having obtained the land only on lease, it must let it on lease, and cannot sell it. If no shorter term than 99 years were mentioned it would be impossible for the County Council to sell to the small holders. Consequently, the whole question of leasing arises on this Amendment. I was saying that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was for compulsory feu, and that, I need; not say, is not a question which arises on this Amendment, because this must be restricted to leasing and letting for a less term than 99 years. But there is another point on which we are in some doubt, and that is what amount of land is to be so leased. Does the hon. Member mean that the terms of his Amendment shall apply to all holdings between one acre and fifty acres, this being the general limit of the Bill? If he intends only to apply this to small quantities of less than fifty acres, then I think the Bill already goes a long way to meet him, because it provides that the County Council shall have power to lease land up to ten acres. Therefore the only point between us would be whether that power should be extended up to fifty acres. That is the point that is raised by the Amendment. Is it desirable in this Bill to give power to the County Authorities to lease land in any quantity up to fifty acres, either on annual tenancies or on any term up to 99 years? This is a subject which was carefully considered by the Committee of which the hon. Gentleman himself was a member, and, unless I am very much mistaken, he voted in a sense which I should say was inconsistent with his present Amendment. The Committee came to the conclusion that if any Bill were to be brought in with these large provisions for creating small tenancies, one great object of the whole of this legislation would be entirely lost sight of—namely, the creation of a peasant proprietary. And, unless you get that, you lose entirely that sentimental feeling of possession which induces a man to put more work and more money into the land which is actually his own than he will into land which is not actually his own, which never will be his own, and which he only leases for a term of years. I would urge upon the House the importance of that consideration in this matter. You cannot let the land to these small holders at a price as low as the landlord can let it now, because if the landlord is willing to let at all, he is willing to let at two per cent. on his outlay; but if you are going to buy the land and then borrow money at 3 or 3½ per cent., and incur the various responsibilities which necessarily follow, you will have to let at a rate equivalent to 4 per cent. The only inducement to the small holder is that under this Bill he will be the actual owner of his land, and as the owner he can afford to put much more labour and energy into the land than he could afford to do if he were paying 4 per cent., and can make it pay much better. All that you might get in the shape of small ownerships you will lose entirely if you adopt a plan of small tenants. Another thing which was touched upon by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Jesse Collings) is the enormous increase of risk to the ratepayers if you substitute tenanncies of this kind for ownerships. Is it not perfectly certain that there will be fluctuations in seasons and prices, and periodically times will be bad? How is a popularly representative Local Authority to resist the pressure that will be brought to bear on it under these circumstances for a reduction of the rent? At such times the landlords will be reducing their rents; at times of pressure they invariably do reduce their rents, and if they are not compelled to do so they do so voluntarily. The Local Authority will be under compulsion to reduce the rents, and the example of the contiguous landlords will be brought to bear upon them to enforce the argument for reduction. Under these circumstances, and as a Local Authority will never be able to raise the rents, it is absolutely impossible that a transaction of this kind can be carried on without loss to the ratepayers. Perhaps you may be willing to face this; but the moment it becomes evident to Local Authorities that they cannot carry out the Bill without a loss of this kind, from that time they will cease to carry it out at all, and unless you are going to compel the Local Authorities to buy land, no Local Authority in the Kingdom will undertake any transactions under this Bill. Then we must look at the important question of improvements. If you make a small tenant the owner of the land, you get rid at once of all those complicated questions of tenants' improvements which must arise if he is to become a temporary occupier only. Although this House has been trying for a great number of years to arrange for some satisfactory scheme of compensation for improvements, I believe by common consent, it has failed, and I believe it always will fail. There is no satisfactory compensation for improvements possible, except the increased value a man may obtain on the sale of the land if he is himself the owner. That is another source of difficulty you are putting in the way of the creation of small holdings if you adopt a system of tenancies instead of ownerships. Then the question of buildings was referred to. I do not lay much stress upon that; but, at the same time I believe that where a man is the absolute owner of the land, and has no landlord to consult, there is a probability that he will put up buildings, which, although they will not be as good as the landlord's, will be sufficient for the purpose of the tenant, and from time to time they will be improved; and, unless you leave the responsibility of providing these buildings to the tenant, the expense to the Local Authority of providing them will so enormously increase the risk, that there, again, you will almost make it prohibitory. The Amendment proposes that the Local Authority should have power to lease for any term less the 99 years, and my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Reid) said there were numberless cases in which persons had put up buildings on land which was held for 99 years. But that is assuming that the maximum term will always be the minimum term.

I have known buildings put up on much less than 99 years' lease.

I have known cases of forty years, and one case of 21 years, but I think that is an uncommon state of things. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree with me, that if the lease is to be for a short term, say 21 years, there would be much more difficulty in the way of the tenant putting up the necessary buildings than if he were the absolute owner. I put before the Committee the objections which struck me as insuperable to the ideas contained in the Amendment. A great number of these objections, probably all of them, would not apply to such a proposal as I understand might be made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. A proposal for a perpetual feu is, of course, a proposal for what is equivalent to a perpetual freehold. There are some advantages in favour of such a system, but I will not discuss them now. I see, also, some disadvantages, and I want to call the attention of hon. Members on this side of the House to the fact that it is not upon that we are voting now. If we must vote against this Amendment, we can vote against it without committing ourselves in any way to a general objec- tion to the principle of a perpetual quit rent or feu; and we naturally object to the proposal in the Amendment, which, in its present form, will be absolutely unworkable.

I hope the Member for Devon (Mr. Seale-Hayne) will go to a Division, for now we have heard the Members for Bordesley and West Birmingham we understand what we are going to vote about. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman into the question of what is to be done with the land when it has been obtained; first, because I prefer to follow your ruling, Mr. Courtney, and not his; and, secondly, because I believe it will be very much more convenient to deal with that subject under Clause 3. This Amendment aims solely at giving Local Authorities another means of obtaining land necessarily only for letting purposes. The hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) said that he looked upon this Bill mainly and chiefly as an ownership Bill. We do not. Hon. Members who are going to vote against this Amendment regard this as a Bill mainly for the purpose of creating a yeoman farmer class. We look upon it, if it is to be of any value at all, chiefly as a means for allowing the Local Authorities to obtain land for the labourers, and this is a question we shall hear more about. The labourer does not generally want to buy the land. He cannot do it; he has not got the money to do it. He has told you so at your Congresses over and over again. If there are a few who are able to do it, by all manner of means let them become yeomen farmers. I know the agricultural labourers of the West Country, and they are not able to buy; but many of them are anxious to acquire land as tenants at a fair price and a fair tenure, and to put their little capital and their little savings into the land. The Member for Bordesley has stated the great difference of view between us quite accurately and fairly; and I am going into the opposite Lobby to him because I believe the labourers want to be tenants and not owners. This Amendment merely proposes an extra alternative. You do not prevent a County Council from buying land from a willing landlord; but there are many landlords in England who are unable or unwilling to sell their land because of the tenure, or because of the conditions of ownership, who may be perfectly willing to let land to the County Council on lease for 50 years, and they may be willing to insert clauses to give fair compensation for improvements, which, of course, if they are honest men, they ought to be anxious enough to do. The Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) spoke about the difficulties of estimating this compensation. That is, no doubt, a very vital question, but I do not think it arises on this clause. I could tell this House, if I were in order, of land sold last week in the Eastern Division of Gloucestershire, where the rent has been run up from £3 to £10 per acre, and is now sold by auction over the heads of the tenants, who have no claim for compensation or prolonged possession. If this Bill leaves the House without some better security for compensation than is suggested by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, there will be very little encouragement for these poor labourers to put their hearts into the land. I also differ entirely from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that people can get land in the open market from willing landlords at a rental based upon a 2 per cent. profit on the landlord's capital. If that is what prevails in the neighbourhood of Birmingham I am very glad to hear it. I am well aware that many large farms are let, in certain districts, at an equivalent to 2 or 2½ per cent.; but I am aware of no district where landlords, however benevolent and well-disposed, are willing to let land in small lots to labourers at two per cent. on its value. I think it will be much better, therefore, for the County Councils to get this land, in many districts at prices which will give the landlords three per cent., on long leases, and the labourers will only be too glad to pay four per cent. to the County Council. This would avoid all risk to the ratepayers, and create a sinking fund, if you like, for the possible ultimate purchase of the land. We vote for this Amendment because it gives an extra alternative to the Local Authority for acquiring land for letting in small portions, and we vote against the view of the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) that this is a Bill for creating yeoman farmers and owners only.

I feel very much, in conformity with what has dropped from the Chair, as to there being an inconvenience in discussing together two questions which are quite distinct, and each of which deals with a subject of sufficient magnitude to deserve separate attention. At the same time, after the remarks of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), I admit, when it is proposed to give a certain power to the Local Authorities to acquire land upon leases not exceeding 99 years, we cannot avoid in some degree taking into consideration the question whether, when they have got that land they can find useful employment for it? Now, Sir, my position is this. The Mover of this Amendment, I should think, in the abstract, is not at all satisfied with his own Amendment; that is to say, he is not satisfied with the limited sphere in which he, and I, and all of us are obliged to act. We wish to give powers under which the Local Authority would be able to make much more efficient arrangements; but being cribbed, cabined, and confined as we are, we are bound to make the best of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has made a concession, and an important concession, in promising when we reach the proper portion of the Bill to introduce the principle of renting land. That I admit to be a concession which we ought to welcome, and therefore the question I have to ask myself is, not whether the Amendment of my hon. Friend does all that can be desired. There I agree with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that the arrangements that can be made under this Bill by the Local Authority would be very imperfect arrangements, but still they will be worth having, and I am so convinced that my hon. Friend is right about the unpreparedness of the labourers to pay down capital sums as a general rule, that every alternative to that is to me welcome even within the narrowest limits. I will take leave to make one comment by way of criticism on the remarks of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and that is this. He said that the labourer has no general anxiety to become a proprietor, he wants to get the use of the land, but not as a proprietor, evidently because, in my hon. Friend's view, that becoming proprietor involves paying down a capital sum which he has not got in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of one thousand. Yes; but there is one form in which, if we were in a position to give it, he would be glad to become a virtual proprietor, that is under the form of freeing the land, but that is out of our power. We look to this Bill as an interim Bill, and we accept it in the hope of enlargement and improvement in the future. But, undoubtedly, when I consider the difficulties in the way of bringing the farm labourer into contact with the land, into a use of the land for his own profit—which is the object we all have in view—I do accept every method which opens to him a door, even though it be a wicket door, and as, undoubtedly, I think endowing the County Council, with besides the option of buying the land the option of leasing it, does enlarge the limited sphere in which we are permitted to act under the provisions of this Bill, and endeavouring to look at the question simply and solely from a practical point of view, that the Amendment of my hon. Friend will make the Bill a better Bill than it is without it, I shall undoubtedly be disposed to accept it in the same spirit in which it is proposed.

I hope the Committee will not introduce the leasing principle into the Bill, my objection to it being that the labourer will not bestow on land, belonging to somebody else, the same amount of labour which he would if he were the owner. There is another great objection which I have—namely, that it would lead to the compulsory purchase of the land at excessive prices, and in addition there is the practical objection that when you carry out these transactions it is of the greatest importance that all the parties should know what they are doing. The County Council should know what price they are going to pay for land, and the labourer should have some idea of the price he may expect, to get it at. Under this system of compulsory purchase they will not know. The Council will have to serve notice on the landlords, and from the date of that notice the land belongs to the County Council, the price having afterwards to be determined. The County Council may find when that price is fixed that it is one which will prevent them letting the land at a price the labourers will pay, and the land will be left on their hands. If the County Council acts under the compulsory terms they will be saddled with land which they can only deal with at a loss. For these reasons I object to the leasehold system and compulsory purchase.

The argument of the President of the Board of Agriculture amounts to this: that the landlord injures his estate by granting a lease. Every landlord in the country grants leases, why should he not grant one to the County Council? I cannot understand the position of the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) with regard to the Amendment. I proposed an Amendment on the Allotments Bill in almost the same words, and he supported it with his vote. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham appeared to get completely mixed up in his argument, for he talked about the County Council getting land and letting land as if these were the same question. The Amendment deals with the question of the County Council taking land on lease, and not with that of letting land. I hope, after this discussion, I shall get the support of hon. Members opposite who are perfectly well acquainted with the wants of the agricultural labourer, and know that what he wants is to rent land at a fair agricultural value.

I desire to support the Amendment. I know that in the county with which I am best acquainted—Essex—compulsion is not needed, as land is going out of cultivation. But I cannot understand why, having digested the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts and the compulsory clauses of the Allotments Acts, and in view of the possible expropriation of the land by Railway Companies, hon. Members on this side should refuse to swallow the mild compulsion of the Amendment.

I was surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), because I have among my papers a representation from his constituency pointing out that this question of leasing is to them the most important thing which could be put in the Bill. His constituents think that the County Council of their county will not be induced to embark on a large transaction of purchase out and out. They think that the Council should be empowered to take such land as is wanted on short leases, and to re-let it in small holdings. In Forfarshire there are probably more small farms—from 50 to 100 acres—than in any other county in Scotland, and they are held under this very tenure which the hon. Member rises up to condemn. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) put one or two cases which seemed of a formidable nature, and it is true that the system of ownership is preferable. But in many cases these small tenants cannot purchase out and out, as they have not the quarter of the purchase money required; but if the County Council has power to take land on lease these tenants can come in and take a small holding on lease. It seems to me that is a useful form of transaction, and one which we ought to provide as an alternative. I have also received re presentations from my own county, from the class likely to be most intimately concerned in the matter, to the effect that they believe the leasehold system will be the one most readily available, and I, therefore, wish to take this opportunity of expressing my opinion on the question.

I only came into the House while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was speaking, and if the Division had been at once taken I should have been inclined to vote with him; but I agree, on an examination of the clause under discussion, and the Amendment, that the right hon. Gentleman got rather mixed in his arguments. They were sound on the point to which they were directed, and I thought from them that the point he was combating was that of allowing tenants under the County Council to let their holdings to others; that would be a most objectionable proposal. But I find that the proposal is really for the County Council to take land compulsorily on leases not exceeding 99 years. I agree in the desirability of this proposal to give further scope to the Bill, but, in my opinion, the Amendment does not go far enough; why should they be limited to leases not exceeding 99 years? Why should they not be empowered to take land for 999 years or on perpetual leases? If that were done, I do not see how the difficulties referred to by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) as to buildings, improvements, and so on, would apply at all. Although in my view this is a rubbishy measure, and hardly worth our attention at all, so limited is its scope and so little good is it likely to be to those it is desired to help, I am anxious, by supporting an Amendment of this kind, to enlarge the scope as much as possible, and so make the Bill a little more useful. The hon. Member for Essex (Major Rasch) seemed to think that hon. Gentlemen on his side would object to the Amendment because of the compulsion in it. I agree with him that as compulsion has been recognised in so many other Acts it is rather straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel for hon. Members on either side to object to the compulsion in the Amendment. The principal point, however, is rather that of enabling the County Council to take land on lease. If there is no risk in the County Council going into the market and becoming speculators in land, there can be no more risk in them leasing it for a term of years.

If the Bill is going to be any use in Scotland, it is important that leasing power should be given to the County Council.

The point to which the hon. Baronet is referring will be dealt with in a later portion of the Bill.

The next Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Merionethshire is outside the scope of the Bill, and therefore it cannot be put, being out of Order.

May I ask, on the point of Order, whether, during the passing of the Allotments Act, in which, so far as I recollect, no instruction was added, an Amendment similar to this, and almost identical in its words, was accepted in the course of the Debate on the Bill?

I do not remember anything about that case. This Amendment is quite outside the scope of the Bill.

As regards the Amendment referred to by the hon. Member in reference to the Allotments Bill, so far as my recollection goes the provision was originally in the Bill.

On behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. Channing) I beg to move in page 1, line 16, to leave out the word "agriculture," and insert—

"Agricultural or pastoral holdings or for market or allotment gardens."

The hon. Member will find by referring to the Bill that pastoral holdings are already included within its provisions. Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 runs thus:—

"The expression 'small holding,' for the purposes of this Act shall mean land which appears to the Council to be suitable for agriculture, and exceeds one acre, and either does not exceed 50 acres, or if exceeding 50 acres, is of an annual value, for the purposes of the Income Tax, not exceeding £50."

"The expressions 'agriculture' and 'cultivation' shall include horticulture, and the use of land for any purpose of husbandry, inclusive of the keeping or breeding of live stock, poultry, or bees, and the growth of fruit, vegetables, and the like."

After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the words "and exceeds one acre." This Amendment would be rendered unnecessary if the provisions of the Allotments Act were extended to Scotland. I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are willing to extend the Allotments Act to Scotland? Hon. Members representing English constituencies will understand the effect of this Amendment is only necessary for Scotland. We have no Allotments Act, and, therefore, we have no means of obtaining so small a portion of land as under one acre. If Her Majesty's Government intend to extend the Allotments Act to Scotland, I should not press this Amendment to the Bill; but it is of the utmost importance to Scotland that power should be given to the County Councils to obtain land in smaller portions than one acre. I have before me the case of fishermen in large districts of Scotland. They do not require an acre of land, and still they want an allotment in connection with their cottages. I have also before me the case of a large number of agricultural labourers, who require land to build their houses upon, and very often require a bit of land for a garden, but who do not require what we call a "small croft" of two or three acres. I do not think that the excision of these words would do any harm as regards the application of the Bill to England. But I should like, before discussing the Amendment further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture whether Her Majesty's Government intend during this Session to extend the Allotments Act to Scotland? If not, I think the Scotch Members will agree with me that the striking out of these words would, to a large extent, meet our difficulties in Scotland.