moved, "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and have precedence at every Sitting; that, at the conclusion of Government Business each day, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; that on Fridays the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday; and that no Motions be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11."

indicated dissent.

The Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone shakes his head, but he has not seen the Bill. Until that Bill has seen the light of day, and has been subjected to the scrutiny of a few days' Parliamentary observation, I hesitate to pronounce a definite judgment on its character or reception. The third Bill in the same category is

The Police Bill.

That is a Bill which I believe everybody would like to see passed, because it makes provision for an extra day of rest for the police in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee, and I should trust that that will go through without serious opposition. There are two other Bills, also Home Office Bills, which it is very desirable to pass if possible—

• Workmen's Compensation Act (Anglo-French Convention) Amendment Bill,
• Coal Mines Regulation Bill,

introduced by my right hon. Friend the other night to correct an error in the Act of last year. Those are all Bills which we should like to see, and which we will endeavour to see, carried through, subject to the observations I have made.

The Sessional statement habitual in our procedure has, I suppose, never been made so late in the year as 20th August. It is at least a month later than we have been familiar with under the practice of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and, I think, of his predecessors. It may be that there is a precedent for it, but certainly my own recollection does not at the moment supply me with any precedent for a Motion which is usually supposed to herald the end of the Session being made at so late a date. The right hon. Gentleman has put off this Motion a month later than usual. Now that he has made it I cannot see when the end of the Session is to be. But I should gather from the general tenour of his remarks that we may look forward to the prospect of spending two or three months more in the pursuit of these legislative chimeras. It is surely not without its significance that the right hon. Gentleman has framed his Resolution in a manner hitherto without precedent, because of the near approach of Michaelmas. I believe I was myself responsible as Leader of the House for the original Rule which gave the Government precedence on all Fridays, except two, after Whitsuntide, and I remember there was a great discussion, and it was then felt that unless there was an Autumn Session there was no reason why we should not introduce that limit. The right hon. Gentleman hates Autumn Sessions, but does he hate sitting in the autumn? He has the strongest objection, I am sure, on private grounds—that is a view common to all parties in the House—and on public grounds, he has a great dislike born of experience to asking the House to reassemble in the autumn to carry on its business. But he has no objection at all to the House sitting through the ordinary period, through the ordinary holidays, and then through the months of the Autumn Session. Of the two bad things, I frankly admit that I regard the latter as very much the worse. It is a very singular policy for the Government to pursue, who only a few months ago announced that they did not think it was a proper use to put the Parliamentary machine to; that it was injurious to the careful study of legislative projects; that it threw an undue burden upon the officers of the House and upon the permanent officials, on whose assistance every Government must rely so much for the accurate working out of the measures they bring in. It may be even injurious to their efficiency if they are asked to sit through these two terms.

A no less interesting part of the policy of the Government is I notice that they ask the House to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule. The Prime Minister has got a fine sense of humour, which he has shown by the manner in which he has asked the House to go through this very empty form. It is like informing the citizens of some besieged place who have had nothing to eat for many days that they ought to be content with half rations. We are informed that henceforth we must never expect to go to bed at eleven o'clock, when, as a matter of fact, so many of us never go to bed at all. It is I will not say adding insult to injury, but it is something very like it to ask us to sit up all night for four consecutive days, and then to come down and with all the solemnity of Parliamentary form and Ministerial statement to say that henceforth the Eleven o'clock Rule is to be suspended. I do not know that I need make any further reference to that except to refer to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the proposal which has been suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle. The Member for Barnard Castle, recognising, I suppose, that the sittings might be long, thinks that at least they might occur during the hours when ordinary respectable citizens do their work. The Government decline all responsibility for making any proposal of the kind, and if they do not nobody else can. And there is one very serious objection in addition to the object hinted at by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's objection was that there are many Gentlemen—and I hope there will always be—who have other avocations and other work than merely carrying out their Parliamentary duties. But there is this further objection—what security have we that if we begin at eleven, let us say, on Monday, we shall be any more likely to get to bed before nine o'clock on Tuesday morning? That would be, if anything, worse than the existing system, which is that of sitting up all night. It would that of sitting up all day as well. Much as I object to spending 15 hours of the 24 in this House—too many of these 15 hours are in the small hours of the morning—our case would not improve if we were to add on to them all the ordinary working hours of an ordinary civilised day. Under these circumstances, I venture to suggest to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, if he will accept the suggestion from me, that before advancing the idea that we should meet at an earlier hour, he ought to take some further steps to insure that we shall not sit late.

I go now to the actual statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman. He divided the Bills, according to his own custom and the custom of his predecessors in the office, into Bills which are controversial and Bills which may or may not be controversial, and Bills as to which he is tolerably confident that they are not controversial. I am not sure that the classification is one which would precisely in every respect meet the views of the habitual opponents of the Government. We all admit that the Budget is one Bill that is controversial. There is no question about that. The London Elections Bill and the Irish Land Bill are also controversial. But is the right hon. Gentleman right in saying that another Bill to which he referred—the Scottish House Letting Bill—is not controversial? I do not profess myself to have an acquaintance with that measure, or with all these questions which it suggests, but I certainly have received hints and suggestions from those who are more acquainted with the subject than I am that it would be well not to ask the House to pass that Bill without having a very full discussion, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman must not be too confident.

It is on the Report stage.

Of course, if the Bill has gone so far there may be some hope of its proving less difficult than I was inclined to think with such imperfect information as I had. But we shall see, at all events. Then the right hon. Gentleman is tolerably confident that the Temperance (Scotland) Bill is uncontroversial.

No; the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I am under no such illusion. It is not non-controversial.

I thought that was a Bill which the right hon. Gentleman believed would pass without contention. My own experience is that if everybody is unanimous about desiring temperance nobody is unanimous with respect to the methods by which it is to be attained, and it would be a most fortunate measure which would escape controversy, whether proposed by Gentlemen on this side of the House or by followers or Members of the party opposite. We know nothing about the Anglo-French Convention and its relation to the Workmen's Compensation Bill, and therefore it is quite impossible for me to say anything. At first sight it is extremely puzzling to me to know how our relations with France can affect compensation to British workmen.

It is only to give reciprocal rates to French workmen in this country and English workmen in France in regard to compensation.

I am very far from condemning such a proposal—very far. I think it may be a perfectly proper proposal; but, unless I have been misinformed, the right hon. Gentleman on his own authority entered into reciprocal relations with the French Government to give information with regard to property held by French citizens in this country and by English citizens in France, and the result will be to drive out of London an immense mass of securities which are held here. Unless this effort at reciprocity is more happily framed than the one in which the right hon. Gentleman has already indulged, I think it will be very disastrous to this country, but hope for better things. The only other Bill to which I need refer at all is the Coal Mines Regulation Act Amendment Bill. If I remember aright the Coal Mines Regulation Act was passed late last year, and has only been in operation a very short time. I quite agree that in a complicated measure we cannot hope to pass it without its requiring subsequent amendment, but certainly I should have thought that the Coal Mines Regulation Act was not a very complicated measure. It has been under the consideration of this House so often and so long, and the Government have had such opportunities of dealing with it, that they might have been able to frame its provisions and to avoid the necessity of its being amended almost before it has come into operation. I gather that this is not so much a Bill introduced on its merits at the end of August, but that it is rather a Bill introduced in order to fulfil a pledge casually given at a bye-election by one of His Majesty's Ministers. That is an additional reason for thinking, as I have often thought, that the plan requiring Ministers of the Crown to seek re-election on taking office is extremely absurd; this is a new and additional objection to the plan, which I have always thought antiquated and belonging to a wholly past phase of our Parliamentary Government. If these re-elections are to be the occasion on which new and unauthorised programmes are to be started by Ministers in distress, and if, thereupon, the House is to be asked to sit after Michaelmas in order to carry them through, it really adds a new terror to Ministerial life. If I remember rightly a pledge was given by another Minister, also in distress—the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, His pledge was as to Home Rule. Even the energy of the present Government and the patience of the present House of Commons are, I presume, hardly equal to beginning a Home Rule controversy, not in the dog days, but long after the dog days have passed and the autumn frosts are about to begin. I have nothing more to say about the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. We shall see how it works out. I think that, like many of his predecessors and like myself when I occupied his place, he is somewhat over-sanguine as to what measures will be passed, but if he is really going to throw upon this House in the next two or three months a strain at all comparable to the strain that has been thrown upon it during the last six weeks, then I can only say that, in my opinion, he is doing the very greatest possible disservice to the traditions of the House, to the efficiency of the House, to the health of Members, and to the effective capacity of the permanent officials and officers of the House to carry out the immense responsibilities with which they are entrusted. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyttelton) puts to me whether it is worth while to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can forecast the time we shall be here. Clearly there is no use whatever in asking him that. He cannot tell us how long we shall be sitting here. I do not ask him for a prophecy which he might be reluctant to give, and which, if he gave it, would almost certainly be falsified by the fact.

The suggestion of my colleagues is, that under the very special circumstances in which the House has been working during the last few weeks it should be made possible for us to meet at an earlier hour. The Leader of the Opposition has asked us to try to arrange, before seeking to bring about an earlier hour of meeting, to bring about an earlier time of closing. It seems to us that if the Government could have arranged for the sittings of the House to begin at 11 or 12 o'clock, as we do on Friday, it would so have facilitated the work of the House that we would, at any rate on most days, have closed the sitting three or four hours earlier than we have been doing during the past few weeks. We were encouraged to bring before the Government the suggestion that we might meet on an earlier hour, because of the fact that at this time of the Session few, if any, of the regular Committees are sitting, and I believe I am right in saying that when a Debate has taken place on previous occasions on the subject of earlier time of meeting of the ordinary sittings of the House, two strong arguments have always been advanced, first the number of Committees that required the attendance of Members at 11 or half-past 11 o'clock in the morning, and the other was the difficulty of getting the attendance of so many Members who were engaged in connection with Committees upstairs, or as lawyers were engaged in their cases in the law courts. That argument cannot apply at the present time, for I believe I am right in saying we are in the Long Vacation, and as I have already stated Committees are scarcely at all sittings.

No argument seems to be left against meeting at 11 or 12 o'clock, except it be that of Ministers who may be engaged in Departmental work. That argument was not advanced to-day. The argument that the Prime Minister advanced, namely, that of asking Members of the House who have business to attend to to come here at an earlier hour, seems to me not to have the force in it that might at first be imagined. What are we doing to-day? We are not asking all the Members of the House to sit here till the early hours of the morning. At any rate, we do not get the whole of the Members of the House, or anything like a large percentage of the Members of the House, to sit here morning after morning to an early hour. What have we found during the past week? I think during the whole of the last all-night sitting we had 130 on one side in nearly the whole of the Divisions, and between 40 and 50 Members on the other side. Surely, if it is possible to arrange, and I suppose there is a certain amount of arrangement, whereby a large number of the Members are permitted to go home for certain hours and permitted to come in when it most suits their convenience, surely if that is possible when we are working through the whole of the night and into the early hours of the morning, it is also possible to arrange for a sufficient number of Members to be here at 11 o'clock, so that the work of the House can be carried on at a time when Members were best capable of giving all that was best within them to the work that the House had in hand? It seems to me that no solid practical argument can be advanced against making an arrangement, especially during the time the Finance Bill is under consideration.

However, I am glad that the Prime Minister has left it to the House. I do not take it, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition does, that because the Government have not made this proposal, or proposed the change that we have suggested, that it is impossible for the change to be brought about. It seems to me that the responsibility is now thrown: upon the Members of the House, and all parties in the House, and if there can be general agreement, as I hope there can be, that the business of the House could be conducted from 11 o'clock or from 12 o'clock until the ordinary hour by getting a sufficient number of Members in attendance, it ought not to be impossible for that arrangement to be brought about. After the very extensive programme that the Prime Minister has brought before us, not one of the measures of which we, sitting on these benches, think ought not to be passed, any Member of the House would prefer to make all the sacrifice that would be necessary in order to have the whole of the Government programme pushed through before the end of the Session. We should be prepared to make the whole of the sacrifice, to wait up even under the present arrangement, in favour of that, if there was no alternative. But we are not convinced that there is no arrangement possible. There is an alternative, this alternative I have suggested, an arrangement whereby Members who sit through the early hours of the morning could be induced to come down here two or three hours earlier, as we have done to-day and as we do every Friday, and that we could thereby get home three or four hours earlier, which I think would be an advantage, not only to the Members, but would be an advantage to the ordinary officials of the House who have to be kept here, as we are kept here, until each of the sittings close. Therefore I sincerely hope the Members of the House will be prepared to join with us on these Benches to see if some arrangement cannot be made whereby this alteration can be entered into at the earliest possible moment.

May I ask the Prime Minister to give an indication as to the remaining stages of the Housing and Town Planning Bill?

The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson) made the interesting suggestion, which was alluded to by the Prime Minister, that the House should meet at 11 o'clock in the morning, and should go on regularly to 11 or 12 o'clock at night. If that were the real proposal which the Government would hold out to the House, I confess, though I should regard it as a bad expedient, yet as an alternative to sitting up all night, I must say there is a good deal to be said for it. But I do not gather that the Government would give any such undertaking at all. They have not given the slightest sign of doing so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, but I feel quite confident he would not be a party to any such proposal being made. I shall have a word or two to say about that later on. I desire to add one word to what the hon. Member for Barnard Castle said. He alluded to the fact that during the all-night sittings there was a small portion of the House present. That is quite true, but I do not draw the same conclusion that the hon. Member did. I think that shows what a very bad expedient all-night sittings are. I think it is not a good precedent at all, for what ought to be done in reference to the procedure of the House. There is a comparatively small number of the Members of this House who take a great interest in a particular measure. Necessarily that must be so, and I think it is one of the glories of the House that you always find a certain small number who are more or less experts in every Bill that comes before the House. What you want to secure is the attendance of those Members of the House during the discussion of the Bill. It is really immaterial whether the great mass of the Members attend or not except that there must be a majority of course to keep the Government of the day in office. But beyond that it does not really much matter whether they attend or not. The strain of the all night sittings on the small number is the real difficulty which all-night sittings seem to have. I do not think the fact that they attend or not. The strain of the all-night occasionally is any guarantee you will be able to get them here from day to day, sacrificing their own private business from 11 o'clock in the morning to 11 o'clock at night. At the same time, if it were really possible to make a definite binding arrangement that the House would not be asked to sit up all night, I think that it would be so great a boon and improvement that I should be myself prepared to support such a proposal as that made by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, in order to deal with this present difficulty, and as an exceptional measure for the difficulty we find ourselves in now.

I should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to one or two of the Bills on the Paper. I do not suggest that the Government should take up any other private Member's Bill, but I ask them to consider favourably, for another occasion, a little Bill in which I am personally interested, namely, the Infant Life Protection Bill. There is no real opposition to it, but I do not think it would be fair to ask the Government to take it up this Session, because there are some Gentlemen—I do not know what their reasons may be—who are still opposed to it. It is, however, a measure of real reform, not a very large one, but of an important character, and I hope the Government will be able in the future to take it up. Then may I refer to the Bishopric of Sheffield Bill, in which I take great interest. I regret that that Bill cannot be regarded as altogether uncontroversial. That is regrettable, because I am convinced, whatever opinions there may be as to Disestablishment and Nonconformity, everyone must desire that improvements should be made in a great organisation like the Church of England, which, after all, is engaged for the most part in work which all of us regard as of the highest importance and in the best interests of the country. Therefore, I hope the Government will at some time or other, if they have time, consider carefully whether some general Bill in reference to bishoprics cannot be passed to facilitate the creation of subordinate bishoprics where it is quite plain that for the proper accomplishment of the spiritual work of the Church such a thing is desirable. Every Member of the House, when he comes to think over the subject impartially, will, I am sure, agree that such a measure would be a desirable change in our organisation, and one which might be passed without very severe opposition.

1.0 P.M.

I think the House at large has some reason to complain of what has been done in reference to the Housing and Town Planning Bill. Last year an immense amount of time and labour was spent on the consideration of that Bill in Standing Committee, but owing, to want of time it did not get any farther. The Government then said, "We are going to give great facilities to this Bill. We will have a new departure; we will rush it through Committee, Report, and Third Reading, and send it up to the other House"—where, whatever we may think of their decisions, there are a great number of gentlemen who are qualified to express opinions upon the Bill and give it consideration from a practical point of view. But what has happened? That was said at the beginning of the Session, and the Bill is still in exactly the same position as it then was. That is not a proper way of treating the matter. The Government have submitted the Bill to a guillotine of a very severe kind; there are to be only two days for Committee and one for Report and Third Reading, which is perfectly preposterous when you consider the amount of detail contained in the Bill, and will do nothing but waste two or three days of Parliamentary time in futile and inadequate discussion. It would have been far better to have sent the Bill to a Standing Committee in the ordinary course early in the Session. It would have meant a considerable amount of attention and reconsideration of points which were partially considered last year; but the Bill would not have been any the worse for it, as it still requires a good deal of attention, and no time would have been lost in passing the measure into law. I greatly regret the course the Government have taken in regard to the Bill, and under the circumstances there is grave doubt whether it is any good proceeding further with it this Session. With regard to the Development Bill, we only know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us; but the principle laid down by him seems to be so exceedingly dangerous, that if the Bill carries it out I cannot believe that it will prove to be in any way non-contentious. One word in conclusion about the proceedings on the Finance Bill. I do not think any Member regards the methods which have been employed to carry the Finance Bill as far as it has gone as anything like satisfactory. Nobody can pretend that to discuss complicated and technical details between three and nine in the morning is in any way a satisfactory method of legislating. It is said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is at any rate an improvement on the guillotine. I do not agree. Personally, as I have said over and over again, of all expedients for legislating I consider there is nothing worse than all-night sittings. The guillotine is very bad, but I prefer the guillotine to all-night sittings. I do not believe you get substantially better discussions at an all-night sitting than under the guillotine, and there is the additional disadvantage that it destroys the temper and health of Members of the House. It is not only the private Member; he has his own way out of the difficulty—he may simply absent himself. It is disastrous to the government of the country, because it weakens and destroys the vitality and energy of Ministers. It is a very serious matter, and I am convinced that it is fatal to the constitution of the country. The Government came into power pledged to restore the position of the House of Commons, but although they have been in office three and a half years they have done next to nothing to improve the conditions which obtain. I have urged that a Committee should be appointed to consider the matter, and the Prime Minister has been good enough to say that he largely agrees with me. I do not see why that Committee, which a large number of Members desire, should not have been appointed weeks ago. I do not believe that the problem of the procedure of this House is insoluble. I do not believe in the guillotine nor in all-night sittings, nor even in the new Closure—which I understand is now described as "Kangaroo Closure"— although it does not work badly in some respects, provided it is applied fairly by the Chairman. It all depends on the absolute impartiality of the Chairman who presides over our Debates. I am not going to say a word in criticism of either the Chairman or the Deputy-Chairman; but I do desire to emphasise that point very strongly, and to press upon the Government and the House generally that if this system is not applied fairly it will certainly break down, and not achieve even the modified amount of good which its fair application might secure. But however good it may be no one can pretend, after the experience of a week or two, that it is a complete solution of the difficulties of the procedure of this House. It may be an improvement, it may do some good, but it is not a solution, and I say that if this House is to continue—and it must continue—we must find somehow or another a real solution of the difficulties of the procedure of this House. If we do not the House is going to lose its position, and with it, as I have often said before, the chief instrument of government, not only of this country, but of the Empire at large.

I rise to say one word upon the Scotch Temperance Bill. I do not quite know whether the Prime Minister realises the position of that Bill. It passed its second reading in February—the first Bill to do so. It went to Grand Committee and remained there till 12th May. There cannot be the slightest suggestion of obstruction, for the Closure was never once applied. It only shows that a Bill that took three months to consider in Grand Committee, without the Closure having been once moved, is hardly a Bill to bring forward on 20th August in addition to the others that have been mentioned. I therefore really do hope that the Prime Minister, now that he is made acquainted with the facts—though, no doubt, he knew them before—will recognise that it will be quite impossible to pass this Bill through the House unless we are going to sit till Christmas.

May I ask whether the Prime Minister will try to get through the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Bill? It would be very acceptable to Wales. My Constituents and my colleagues are greatly interested in the Bill, and as the Welsh have been disappointed in regard to another, and a larger Bill, if the Prime Minister could manage to get through this little matter, it would be very much appreciated.

I must think that the conduct of the business by the Government this year has been such as to require a protest from anybody who really values the dignity and status of the House of Commons. I shall say some things which, I am afraid, will not be altogether palatable to the Government, but I take this opportunity of saying to their face what I shall certainly say in the country hereafter. I maintain that the Opposition in this long Session has every title to the kindly consideration of the Government for the method in which they have conducted the Opposition. I do not go beyond this Session. There have been four Bills of very great importance which might easily have been treated in a factious way by the Opposition had they followed the example of their predecessors on these Benches. But they have not done so, as has been acknowledged by the Ministers in charge of these Bills—I refer to the Housing and Town Planning Bill, the Labour Exchanges Bill, the Trade Boards Bill, and the South Africa Bill.

And the Indian Councils Bill.

Yes, and the Indian Councils Bill. Let us take the Housing and Town Planning Bill. I have some expert knowledge of this subject, and on both occasions I have spoken in favour of the second reading of the Bill. My friends never divided upon the second reading at all. For 18 days last year we considered this Bill in Grand Committee, and a real endeavour was made, especially by my Noble Friend on this side of the House and by many hon. Gentlemen on that, to get the Bill into some sort of shape. I cannot say that it was altogether successful, because the Bill as drafted was so absolutely unintellgible, and those in charge of it, who had not the assistance of a law officer—I do not blame either of them, for they were not lawyers—were quite incapable of explaining to the Committee the provisions of their own Bill. Ultimately—I do not think it really was due so much to the Government as to private Members—the Bill was put into shape. But it is a novel proposition, a difficult experiment, and I say this with perfect seriousness, that if ever there was a Bill that required the collective experience, sagacity, and practical knowledge of the whole House it is this Bill. What is the reward for the conduct of the Opposition, who spent days in endeavouring to hammer this Bill into some shape? The guillotine has been put on, two days allowed for Committee, and one day for Report and Third Reading. I say, with absolute sincerity, that the work involved in the Bill is the best work this House can do. It is that on its general principles both parties are agreed. Such work is ruined by such treatment as this. Men who have the most friendly disposition towards the Bill will, if it has to be passed through in that way, feel a just resentment against certain measures which have been imperfectly considered. I shall endeavour to make it clear that the Government are responsible, and must be responsible, for the disfigurement which must exist owing to their conduct of this measure. The Opposition have agreed to two other measures, both, in my opinion, useful, but both novel and serious experiments, the Labour Exchanges and the Trade Boards Bills. The President of the Board of Trade has admitted publicly that but for the assistance obtained from the Opposition with regard to the Trade Boards Bill it would not have had a chance of being passed into law. Without going quite so far as that with regard to the Labour Exchanges Bill, I think a similar remark is tolerably accurate. Lastly, there is the South Africa Bill. From the opinion of all that Bill has been treated in an absolutely unbiassed and non-partizan spirit by the Opposition. We are all human, and I must say that if ever upon a great topic the Opposition had some excuse for being factious it is upon the subject of South Africa. The conduct of their predecessors, when they were upon these benches was such as to be apologised for by the Colonial Secretary, Lord Elgin. The late Government was described by the President of the Board of Trade—I do not use such long words myself—in very long elaborate sentences that it would not be Parliamentary for me to reduce into the Anglo-Saxon language. Yesterday's Divisions proclaimed in absolutely unmistakeable terms that if we had yielded to the temptation, and had imitated the wreckless and unscrupulous tactics of the Government when they were in Opposition the great work of South African statesmen would have been placed in jeopardy, and a very damaging blow might have been struck at the Government. Let nobody mistake me for a moment. I do not mean the Opposition were in the least danger of yielding to that temptation, but I claim that in abstaining from taking up any sort of partisan position on the Bill they were entitled, more than entitled, to fair and considerate treatment regarding the conduct of the business of this House from the Government. My Noble Friend has referred to the Budget. Surely that was a proposal of the greatest possible magnitude and of the greatest possible novelty. It has been described by an ex-Liberal Prime Minister as revolutionary; by its own authors it is claimed to be an original, far-reaching and elaborate measure, and it is acclaimed by those having Socialistic opinions. There is not a candid man in the country who does not admit that it is a measure which not only invited, but required and demanded the most serious possible criticism and the most searching scrutiny. I do not think anyone denies that. Yet everyone knows the conditions under which, owing to the conduct of the Government, the House has had to proceed with its criticisms on that measure. Notwithstanding that we have been kept here night after night and morning after morning in a manner exhausting to health and most damaging to the House of Commons, what has this Opposition accomplished? The Bill has been almost remodelled. The cost of valuation, which really with ludicrous want of knowledge, was supposed to be paid, in the first instance, by the owners and the landlords, and which was to be rendered in 30 days, has now been thrown upon the State. Agricultural land has been exempted, open spaces and town-planning arrangements have been provided for in some measure, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when I raised the point upon the Resolutions, said I had only to wait to see the Bill and everything would be satisfactory. So little did he know of his own Bill that when I opened it not a single word was to be found in it in reference to this subject, and the Amendments were only inserted through the exertions of private Members. The absurd provision about ungotten minerals has gone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says from the first he really meant the taxation of royalties, while the Bill provided for the taxation of ungotten minerals. The concessions, as the Govern- ment call them, but which I say have been forced from the Government by fair argument, have absolutely justified us. The Government have seen if they did not yield they would have had to suffer for the disfigurement of their measure. I say it is not fair or true for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down here and speak of concessions and appeal to our gratitude. I say the boot is upon the other leg. I say we are entitled to the gratitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having shown to him and explained to him the necessity for this remodelling of the Bill, and which, if not carried, would have reduced the Bill to failure. We have been treated in this matter by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a manner that I, for one, do not consider fair or right. The Chancellor, as has been often remarked from these benches, has conducted the discussions in this House with great courtesy and good temper; but that courtesy and good temper and fairness have only been for consumption on the premises in this House of Parliament. On off-nights, at Limehouse and other places, the Chancellor exhibits far different and far more objectionable qualities. I can only say he has been guilty outside this House of calumnious inaccuracies; he has made appeals to class passions, and I say it is contrary to every principle of fair play that we should be cajoled with fair words and coaxed into sitting up all night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House while outside hè should resort to the methods which appeal to the worst passions of his supporters and to their lowest motives. I say this with absolute sincerity: I am certain that methods which involve such immensely long hours as well as such continuous sittings, the House of Commons which we have known cannot continue. The present House of Commons—although the majority of its Members differ widely from the opinions I hold—is a House of Commons of great ability, which under fair conditions discusses and debates subjects as well, if not better, than any of its predecessors. I agree with my Noble Friend that that which often distinguishes this House of Commons, as against all other Assemblies in the world, is that it contains a number of men who are profoundly experienced in the different classes of business and knowledge. Scarcely any debate can take place upon any subject that two or three men to whom it is a liberal education to listen do not rise and take part in it. You cannot keep such men in the House if you insist upon exhausting them with such hours and such labours as you are putting on the House. The greatest Parliamentarians of the past have always admitted this. Mr. Gladstone actually said that seven months work was all the House of Commons could reasonably be expected to do. The Prime Minister who is always courteous to us, since he has been in power, and despite the professions of himself and his party when in Opposition, has laid a heavier burden upon this House, and has, I venture to say—and I have spoken to many people outside upon this subject—done more to bring this House as a business assembly into the general contempt of business men outside than anyone else. I say that because I know it is so, and I have heard it said on many sides. Who can possibly be found to deny that it is a preposterous and unbusiness-like thing to invite this House to consider all through the night and during the early hours of the morning proposals of great intricacy which are imperfectly understood by those who propose them, and which require a clear mind to consider them during ordinary hours, instead of the early hours of the morning. I submit this protest, because I feel sure that if this kind of procedure is persisted in this House cannot maintain its past character and dignity.

It is difficult to see what relevance the tirade which the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered bears to the Motion before the House. It is charitable, perhaps, to regard it as a rehearsal or trial trip of an oration which is hereafter to do.service, perhaps, at Bingley Hall. I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the charges which he has made against the Government, and I am not going into the claims he has put forward in regard to what he appears to regard as an exceptionally virtuous Opposition. What has this exceptionally virtuous Opposition done to merit any degree of consideration and generosity beyond that which it has so amply received? It has positively voted, not against, but in favour of a Bill of which it approves. That is the utmost claim the right hon. Gentleman has to put forward. He takes the South Africa Bill of yesterday, and he says "We might have been factious, and, like publicans and sinners, have talked about Chinese labour, but we make broad our phylacteries, and thinking the Bill in favour of the interests of the Empire we positively voted for it." That is what the Opposition has done, and that my right hon. Friend says distinguishes it from all previous Oppositions. But now, Sir, let us see what reward, or, rather, what absence of reward, this virtuous Opposition, which has been so badly treated, has met with. What is the result? My right hon. Friend positively asserts that they have turned the Budget inside out, and I rather gather from his speech that he is now claiming for himself and his Friends a share in the authorship of the Budget—that they are really the joint authors of the Budget. We now know where to look, at any rate, for its pedigree. Could there be two more inconsequent propositions? First of all my right hon. Friend says: "We are an exceptional and virtuous Opposition. How have we been treated? You have given way to almost every one of our arguments and objections on the most vital points." And yet here they stand in the face of the country and say they have been worse treated than any previous Opposition. Let my right hon. Friend go to Bingley Hall or anywhere else and present that case to his fellow-countrymen, and see how they will receive it. For my part I am content to abide by the result. I now pass on to deal with the questions put to me by previous speakers. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle raised the question of the hour of our sittings. I may say that I have a perfectly open mind on that subject, but I think the hon. Member will agree with me when I say that the Government cannot undertake to make a far-reaching change like the one he has suggested unless they are satisfied that it will meet with the general approval of the House. One or two questions have been put to me about the Housing Bill, but on that point I cannot give any positive or definite assurance, although I hope we shall be able to devote two days to it the week after next. That, at any rate, is our present idea.

That is in a fortnight.

I mean the week after next, the 30th instant. That, at any rate, is our present intention. With regard to the Coal Mines Bill, which the Leader of the Opposition referred to, he said it was introduced in consequence of an electoral pledge. I do not believe that that statement is accurate, because, so far as I know, my right hon. Friend gave no pledge on the subject. I believe, how- ever, that it is a Bill which is required by the mine-owners as well as by the men; but we shall not press this measure if it meets with anything like serious opposition. I am sanguine enough to think that the measure will meet with general approval. The hon. Member for Marylebone made an interesting speech, which ended by deploring the decadence of this House, and he revelled in the contempt with which he imagines this House and everything connected with it is regarded by the country at large. I do not revel in that contempt, partly because I do not believe in its existence. I take such opportunities as are afforded me of ascertaining what people outside think of our proceedings, and the only sentiment which I find is anything like universal is one of wonder and amazement and sometimes of disgust that the House of Commons should spend so much time doing so little. The statement that the people outside this House think we are being overdriven, and that we are trying to get from the legislative machine a larger output than it is capable of dealing with I believe to be an entirely unfounded charge. What the country really wants is that the House of Commons should really be more efficient and a more rapid instrument for the production of good legislation. Something has been said about the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule; but, as the House is aware, financial business has always been excluded from the operation of this Rule, and there is nothing abnormal in what we have done in this respect. Although we have sat longer during the last few weeks than is customary, the adoption of the Eleven o'Clock Rule as a normal condition of our procedure is a very great reform. With regard to the new form of Closure, we have only had it in operation for a very short time, but I think already it has more than justified its adoption. Applied by an impartial, high-minded Chairman—and we have always been in the habit of having in the Chair men in whose impartial disposition we can place absolute reliance—I believe this new form of Closure, avoiding as it does some of the worst evils of the guillotine, namely, the passing without discussion really serious Amendments, will save the time of the House and improve the quality of its Debates. Once more, I assure the Noble Lord that I do not think we have got to the end, or by any means to the end of these reforms. I am prepared to set up the Committee for which he has asked, and, so far as the Government is con- cerned, and so far as it has any voice in the matter, he will find it is composed almost, if not entirely, of non-official Members, because I think it only right that, whilst a Committee of that kind may have the advantage of hearing official persons as witnesses, its conclusions ought to represent the considered judgment of the rank and file of the private Members. Their suggestions and recommendations would, I believe, carry far more weight if they proceeded from a body so constituted than if there was an undue infusion on it of the official element. I am prepared to set up that Committee, but I do not suppose anyone expects they will make any great progress during the remainder of the Session. The hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. Rees) asked me about the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Bill. I am extremely sorry to sacrifice that. It is a Bill in which I take a personal interest, but, with great reluctance, we have been compelled to throw it overboard, together with a number of other measures which may reappear next Session, and get a better chance.

What about the Temperance (Scotland) Bill?

I was familiar with the facts to which the hon. Baronet called my attention. I am not in the least under any delusion that it is a Bill of a non-controversial kind, nor is it a Bill which we should begin to discuss after 11 o'clock. The object of suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule is to take for a very short time some of these non-controversial Bills which otherwise have no chance of passing at all. If we do take the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, I hope we shall give proper time to its consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say a word about the Bishopric of Sheffield Bill?

It is united in its fortunes with the Places of Worship {Enfranchisement) Bill, to which my hon. Friend (Mr. Rees) referred. They are being played off on the Parliamentary board one against the other; and, unless there is a truce of God between the parties to help forward these particular measures I am afraid I cannot hold out much hope.

I wanted to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the Building and Engineering Works Bill. I certainly do not think some of the Bills to which reference has been made rank with such importance as that measure, which makes provision for the saving of life. The Government have by their extension of the Workmen's Compensation Act done a good deal in that direction, and I would like to press upon them the desirability of proceeding with this Bill if possible. The next Bill to which I wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention is the Checkweighing in Various Industries Bill. If my memory serves me correctly a Bill was brought in by a private Member, and was not proceeded with on account of the Government having made a promise that they would themselves bring in a Bill. That has been done, and I desire to urge upon the Government the desirability of further proceeding with the Bill rather than with some of the Bills which have been mentioned, and which are certainly not of the same importance as the two to which I have referred.

One thing the Prime Minister said with regard to the position of procedure in this House appeared to me to be of very great importance. He said, and I believe he is quite right, that outside the House the most common impression is one of wonder, and even disgust, that the House should talk so much and do so little. He said that what the country wants is a more efficient and a more rapid machine for turning out legislation. I believe that is quite true. The general view of the public of the House of Commons is that of what we call a sausage machine. They think the functions of the House is not that of a debating assembly, but that of turning out so much legislation—good, bad, or indifferent. I believe that is the view taken outside, but is it a view which the right hon. Gentleman himself holds or with which he has any sympathy whatever? That is the important point. If Ministers take that view, I do not in the least see why we should continue, and I do not believe we shall long continue, to have what our ancestors have known as the House of Commons at all. I can see no advantage, and I do not believe anybody can see what advantage there is of bringing Gentlemen from all over the country, men of experience and capacity, to sit here if you are to go on as we have been going on, preventing them from contributing out of their knowledge and experience to the Debate, and if you are to regard them as mere instruments for turning out from the House a certain amount of legislation. If the Prime Minister is right—and I believe he is—that the view held outside is that of a sausage machine, I draw the exact opposite conclusion. It is all the more incumbent upon Members of this House of all parties who believe in the necessity for a House of Commons to stand together and firmly resist, as far as they are able to do so, this continued encroachment upon the liberty of debate in the House. I believe we are all agreed that the situation is really serious. It arises from the enormous and increasing mass of work which this Government, notably, and all Governments more or less, insist upon forcing through the House of Commons. Already this Session there have been 15 Bills passed. This increasing mass of work brings us into a vicious circle. You have an enormous mass of work before the House of Commons. The result is that there is no time, we are told, to deal with it. Legislation is forced through without discussion, with the result that it does not work. You create new grievances. It saves no time in the end, because it creates a fresh situation which.has to be dealt with anew by legislation, and it gives rise to the necessity for more of that gorging of the House with Bills. For my part, I desire, with great respect, to make a suggestion to the Government, which I do not think has been made yet, and which appears to be worthy consideration in all quarters of the House. We are continually being presented with expedients for dealing with the situation as it arises from time to time, and they always take the form of increased restriction of the rights and liberties of private Members. I have sometimes wondered whether we shall not be driven back to what appears to be a sound principle—that of trusting and believing in the good sense and the sense of fairness of the House as a whole. In old days the difficulties of Ministries were just as great as they now are; they had to face violent opposition, long sittings, and prolonged obstruction. But in those times Ministers managed the House; they were forced to do so. No doubt compromise was resorted to, but the House was managed and business was got through. The system by which legislation is now thrust upon the country at large simply creates more grievances; it adds to the trouble, and the House is continually being asked to submit to more restrictions. I am sanguine—it may be because I am inexperienced—that whatever may be thought of the general wisdom of this House, no one can doubt its sense of fairness, and my firm belief is that if some day some Minister came down and declared his trust in the House—if he said: "These are our proposals, and we submit them to the House, and we will remove some of the ropes by which the House of. Commons is bound at this moment," the House will itself show that it will not tolerate mere obstruction and will reassert its own power. I believe it is in the direction of trusting to the good feeling and the sense of fairness of the House itself that the best remedy is to be found. I admit that this course would involve the necessity of dealing with, and meeting, fair criticism, but still that is the direction in which the best solution of the present difficulty is to be found. I am delighted to hear that the Prime Minister, who has at heart the real interests of the House of Commons in this matter, is going to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole question. I believe that that is an admirable and salutary step, and I thank him for taking it, as I believe it will tend in the direction of securing those rights, liberties, and freedom of Debate which in the past this House has enjoyed, and which I trust it will continue to possess in the future.

I do not think any Members of this House will blame me for expressing my regret that the Shop Hours Bill is to be dropped. I recognise, as well as any Member of this House, the fact that an enormous mass of business has been brought forward this Session, but I cannot agree with a previous speaker that we have been bored by legislation. Possibly that is because we on these benches have voracious appetites and are, therefore, not easily satisfied. It was a responsible Minister who, last year, promised that the Government would do something for that large mass of workers whom I have the honour to specially represent, but when the Bill was introduced, I recognised that—owing to the Finance Bill and other measures—there was very little hope of its being further proceeded with this Session. Still, on behalf of the shop assistants, I desire to thank the Home Secretary for introducing the Bill, as it will enable its provisions to be discussed, and I trust the Prime Minister will give us a promise that in the next Session—which I do not think it is a far-fetched prophecy to say will be held under the present Administration—this Bill will be given a favourable place in the legislative programme of the Government, and that, thereby, justice will be secured for a very large body of workers in this country.

I wish to express my regret that the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill has not been included in the list of measures receiving the favourable consideration of the Government. It has already passed through a number of stages, and I had hopes it would get through another place without practically any objection. I am sorry it has had to share the fate of many other good Bills, and is not included in the programme to be carried through this year.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a memorial from Members of this House in favour of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill, No. 29, being given an opportunity to be passed through? It is a very minor measure, a very meagre portion, and much less than those who are engaged in the trade care for. They would like the whole day, but this measure limits the time to half what it is now, viz., four hours in London instead of eight and to three hours in the provinces instead of six. I hope the Government will give some consideration to that particular request. Then I should like to ask why the Licensed Premises (Election Days Closing) Bill has also been dropped? I think we should all prefer to come here on

What is to be the fate of a Bill called the Assurance Bill, which has passed all its stages in another House.

I mentioned it.

I am sorry. I did not hear it.

moved, in the same paragraph, to leave out the word "a" ["in burghs to which this Act applies without adoption a dwelling-house"], to insert the words, "an unfurnished."

I cannot accept the Amendment. The valuation roll contains no furnished houses.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter. Representations have been made by a large number of proprietors of houses in coast towns which are let for short periods in the summer time, and this would really be a hardship. I am certain there are a great many owners of houses who think this will have a disastrous effect on them.

I desire to associate myself with hon. Members opposite as representing a Constituency which has some of these coast towns. It is true the adoption of the Bill is optional, but as it at present stands, if the Amend-

I beg to move to leave out "twenty-one" ["at a yearly rent or value of twenty-one pounds or under"] and insert "fifteen." If I am fortunate enough to carry this Amendment, I propose to move another later on the effect of which will be to make one uniform scale for all the houses which will be included in this Bill, and to do away with the varying scale which at present exists. I believe I am correct in saying that all the other Bills which have hitherto been introduced had one fixed limit at which the Bill was to come into operation. It would be very difficult to carry out these different alternatives, and I think it would be very much simpler if everyone understood that there was a fixed limit at which the Bill would come into operation. I am

I desire very shortly to state the position of Edinburgh in regard to this Amendment. The Bill, as originally introduced, fixed the rental at £15, and the Corporation of Edinburgh petitioned in favour of it. Occupiers in Edinburgh contribute £70,000 per annum to the rates. There is a loss of about 5 per cent. on the collections, which means a sum of £3,500 per annum. If the rental limit is raised to £26, as proposed by Clause 2, and if the commission is fixed at 15 per cent. for the collections—and that I understand is a moderate estimate, looking to the experience in England—the extra cost to the occupiers would be £12,000 per annum. It virtually means an increase of a penny in the pound on occupiers in addition to the present taxation. The limitation to £15 would cover the case of workmen's houses, which is the purpose of the Bill. I think that the views of the ratepayers should be followed rather than those of the landlords and house factors, who are anxious to collect the rates because of the prospect of getting a fair commission by which they will be paid. My experience of both Edinburgh and Glasgow is that the workmen's dwellings are not above £15 rental, and therefore the proposal which it is now sought to amend would be a distinct disadvantage to the local authority without being an advantage to the working classes themselves.

I hope that the Lord Advocate will not accept this Amendment, because I believe that the Bill is far better as it stands, as far as the mass of working people in Glasgow who are going to be benefited are concerned. The whole speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Gibson) is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that there is going to be a loss on the compounding of the rates. Of course, were the proposal, which comes on later, to increase the amount for the collection of the rates to 25 per cent. to pass, it might become a loss; but we are not going to be so foolish as to pass that Amendment. The compounding is to be carried on with the provision that the sheriff of the district is to fix the amount that is to be given from the rates, and, presumably, the sheriff, being a fair-minded man, accustomed to hear and weigh evidence, will fix the amount of the reduction somewhat in proportion to the loss of the rates, so that there need not be any loss at all if, as I assume he will do, he does his duty. The speech of the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) was somewhat amusing. It was evident when he started to speak that he knew absolutely nothing about this Bill, and just about as much of the conditions in Scotland. He did not know the population of Dundee. He did not know whether the Bill applied to Dundee or not. He said that if the Bill fixed the amount at £15 it would apply to nine-tenths of the houses in Glasgow. I do not know whether it would or not, and I do not care, because I can assure the House it does not matter. The Bill is to afford relief to classes of tenants not included in the large mass of nine-tenths mentioned by the hon. Member. In Glasgow there are about 140,000 houses; and a large number of the houses, I should say about 40,000 or 50,000, are not let under the conditions mentioned by the hon. Member for the City of London—that is to say, subject to the 12 months' lease and the three or four months' notice. Probably one-quarter to one-third of the houses in Glasgow are now let on weekly or monthly tenancies. Consequently you must exclude all those houses altogether. The Bill does not touch them, and the Bill is intended to apply just to that class of houses that lie between £15 and £26—that is to say, it is meant to apply to the better class of mechanic and those men who want to be free to move from one place to another so as to do away with that immobility existing at present which ties up a man to a particular district for 16 months at a time. In the event of the Amendment being carried it will exclude all those houses. I can assure hon. Members that a very large number of those mechanics are paying anything from £20 to £26 per year, and therefore the Amendment will bar out all these men, and practically destroy the Bill.

I hope that the House will not consent to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of London. I cordially agree with the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Barnes). There is a very large number of people in Glasgow and the surrounding districts who suffer hardship from the system at present in operation. I do not

moved to insert after the word "stable" the word "or."

I accept the Amendments.

moved to omit the Clause. The effect of it would be to hamper enterprise in business. The Clause had "two" in it when it came before the House, and that was struck out and "one" inserted in Committee. I should be content not to press this to a Division if the Lord-Advocate would give me any assurance that on any subsequent Amendment "two" would be accepted.

I will myself move it subsequently.

moved to leave out the words "one month" ["more than one month"], and to insert the words "two months."

I regret that this Amendment has been put forward by the Lord Advocate, because the Committee gave this very full consideration, and adopted one month instead of two. The Committee thought one month was quite sufficient to enable the landlord and everybody else to look around and get things settled.

The reason is not to make Clause 4 run counter to Clause 6.

Before we pass from this Clause, may I say that the Lord Advocate might give instructions to his draftsmen to make the rule intelligible to any reader. What has the time limit to do with "Time limit to missives"? We are always told we have nothing to do with these rulings. I did, as a matter of fact, call attention to this in Committee. It has not been put right. I hope the Lord Advocate will be able to tell us that he will be able to get his draftsman to make the Bill intelligible to the ordinary reader.

moved to leave out the words "the owner, or by the law agent or factor of such owner," and to insert the words "or on behalf of the owner or occupier."

May I ask why the Lord Advocate has brought in the occupier? In Committee occupier was left out.

The words were not struck out in Committee. Under Clause 6 either the owner or the occupier may give notice of removal; therefore, in providing machinery, we must provide not merely for the owner, but also for the occupier.

moved to leave out the Clause.

May I ask whether that does not refer to rentals under £4?

I understand not. I believe, however, that in one case, although 20 per cent. is possible, in practice only 7½ per cent. is allowed. According to the town clerk of Edinburgh the result of this system of compounding will be to add 1d. or 1½d. in the £ to the rates. My position is that, in order to remove the grievance complained of, it is quite unnecessary to give effect to these Clauses or that there should be any system of compounding at all. It is quite out of the question to suggest that the collection of the rates at much shorter periods than once or twice in the year could be thoroughly carried out by the borough officials, if the matter were left in their hands, and much more cheaply than it could be done if the matter was put into the hands of the landlords. I object to it because it is a bad principle. The matter has been investigated by several Commissions, Royal and Departmental. So far as I know not a single one has done other than report against the system. The last pronouncement upon the subject was an expression of opinion by the Poor Law Commission. According to their view the principle of compounding—which, of course, has a larger vogue in England than in Scotland—is so bad that every effort should be made to get rid of it. They agree that it cannot be got rid of at once, but their view is that it ought to be got rid of as expeditiously as possible. Here you are not only not getting, rid of the principle, but going to extend it in the large cities, so as to include nine-tenths, more or less, of the ratepayers. I submit that that is a bad thing to do. It is more costly both to the corporation and to the ratepayers. It will result in a heavier burden being placed upon the ratepayers than if the collection was carried out by the officials of the corporation. You are also putting a burden upon the landlords who do not want to discharge the duty, and, I say, ought not to be compelled to discharge it. When it is said that an average can be taken as between the small and large houses, I reply that the owner of both is not one and the same, but often the owner of small houses has small houses only, and that, under those circumstances, it is not an advantage to him. Further as to the practical difficulties, which ought to be kept in view. While this Bill, if passed, will require that agreements should not be made for more than two months before entry of a dwelling-house, and while the occupancy will be made concurrent with the rent collection—the rents are collected monthly, with a month's notice—in point of fact an enormous number of occupiers of houses will continue to occupy them as at present, for six months or a year—although not bound to do so. The difficulty of collecting rates at very much shorter periods has been greatly exaggerated. I quite agree it will be much easier for the officials of the corporation that the landlord should collect them, and then hand the corporation's portion over by a large cheque. But it should be left to the officials of the corporation, whose duty it is. Then it is said that there is a provision in this Bill for notice to be given to the ratepayer by the landlord—of all people in the world—of how much is rent and how much is rates. In Committee upstairs it was practically admitted that these clauses were impracticable. By taking from the tenant—as will happen—exact knowledge of the rates he is paying you deprive him of interest in municipal affairs, and that has in the past led to municipal extravagance. It is put forward as one of the results of this Bill that the ratepayer will not know what he is paying in rates as distinguished from rent. I say that is aggravating the evils of compounding, and is a very good reason why it should be terminated. I am quite sympathetic to the Bill. I want it to pass. But I am quite convinced that to adopt this principle of compounding—particularly now—is to do the best to secure that needed legislation will not follow. Warnings have been given from both sides of the House as to the danger of loading the Bill beyond what it can stand. That is a very serious danger, and I ask the House to take it into account. By Clauses already dealt with to-day we have removed the evil that an agreement made in January or February had the effect of binding the householder for 16 or 17 months afterwards. In my judgment, by introducing this system of compounding on the large scale that it is now being done, we are introducing not only a bad principle, but a principle which, in my judgment, will go a long way towards wrecking this Bill. It is because of this that I beg most respectfully to submit to the House that this principle of compounding should not find a place in the Bill. It is a bad principle, the introduction of which is quite unnecessary. It is costly both to the corporation and the occupier, and probably even to some of the landlords, and if it takes away from the occupiers the necessary interest that they should have in municipal affairs, they will not, as they otherwise would do, take care that the rates are kept as low as possible.

I wish to put before the House in a few sentences the reasons why I think this Clause is absolutely necessary for the efficacious carrying out of what this Bill is intended to do. I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and what struck me most about his speech was the weakness of the alter- native. He objects to the system of compounding, and I could not help wondering why it was that when he was Lord Advocate he did not introduce a Bill to do away with that system. If it is an evil in houses of a certain rental it ought not to be tolerated in houses of a smaller rental. What is the right hon. Gentleman's alternative proposal? That these rates should be collected for the corporation by corporation officials. Has the right hon. Gentleman ever thought what that means? Does he realise the enormous assembly of canvassers and collectors that would mean? How is he to collect the rates from weekly tenants? Does he know of any other place where the collecting of rates are less than quarterly? I respectfully put it to the right hon. Gentleman that while he would destroy the effective machinery of this Bill he places nothing in its place. What is the state of things at the present moment? Let him go and ask the opinions of any assessor of a central authority in Scotland, where they collect the rates once or twice a year, as to the money they have lost owing to the present system. If he does, I venture to think he will be astonished by the figures the assessor will put before him. I quite grant a priori, and from the purely doctrinaire standpoint, it is open to certain objection. I know well that the majority of the Poor Law Commission took that doctrinaire view, but after all you can carry doctrinaire principles too far and ignore practical experience. Against the dictum of the Poor Law Commission I set the dictum of the Departmental Committee set up in Scotland, representative of all parties and interests of diametrically opposite opinions, and I prefer to rest my opinion upon the stronger authority of men who inquired for years into local taxation, and who had for their chairman no less an ornament of the late Government than Lord Balfour of Burleigh. They heard evidence, and what was the decision they arrived at?

"We say, however desirable in principle it might be to abolish compounding, it is generally agreed that the practical defects of collecting and enforcing payments among a large number of the poorer classes of the large towns, who are weekly tenants and are constantly moving from one tenancy to another, are insuperable."

I put that calm judicial finding of the Commission against the somewhat heated rhetoric of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Certain specific statements, however, were made by the right hon. Gentleman, and he gave two London instances where people have given up compounding because, as the right hon. Gentleman alleged, of the inherent viciousness of the system—one was the Peabody Trust buildings and the other was the case of Islington. I think the right hon. Gentleman might reasonably complain of those who prepared his brief for not having told him the whole history. You have compounding in Islington at the present, but you pay the owners nothing whatever for doing it. The Act of 1868 differentiates between owners who live on and owners who live off the premises, and the local authority said to the owners of property at Islington, "You are going to collect our rates, but we will give you no percentage whatever." A case arose upon this, and the owners took the local authority to the courts. In the court of first instance it was decided in favour of the owners, but the Court of Appeal decided in favour of the Borough Council, and unfortunately the case went no further. What about the Peabody Trust? Why did they agree to give up compounding? I have the report here, and it states that during the year arrangements were completed through 14 of the estates whereby, through reduction of rents, the tenants were made liable for the payment of the rates to the local authorities on account of insufficient local allowances. But since that they found the new departure was so unsatisfactory in the case of every Peabody estate, with the exception of Tottenham, that they have been only too pleased to go back to the system of compounding. I venture to say that that disposes of the two cases introduced with such a flourish of trumpets by the right hon. Gentleman. As to the probable percentage to be allowed, I am glad the Lord Advocate has had the wisdom and foresight to provide that the amount of that shall be fixed by some impartial judicial tribunal. I think it is one of the evils of the system in England that the local elected body has so much to do with regard to matters of percentage, I do not think my Scottish colleagues who have not had the fortune to sit on an English local body know that there are two scales of compounding. The scale under the Act of 1868 provides that failing agreement with the owners of property, the figure should be 15 per cent., and where they did come to an agreement they would pay the agreed percentage on the sum collected. It is quite true to say that the allowances in many cases go up beyond 15 per cent., and the reason is that in those cases the landlords are held responsible and pay the rates for empty houses as well as occupied houses. I do not think the allowances fixed for places like Glasgow would probably be more than 7½, or, at the outside, 8 per cent., and I have been told that overtures have been already made to the Corporation that certain landlords would be willing to collect the rates and pay them to the corporation at a less figure. But the figure is to be fixed, by an impartial tribunal, and I am perfectly sure that the decision the sheriff will arrive at will be in the best interests of tenants and landlords alike. There is one great advantage with regard to the compounding system, and it is that it is very much less of a strain on the poor man to pay a little every week or every month than it is to pay the whole amount in one lump at the end of 12 months or twice a year. I am told that the effect of compounding would be to make working men spendthrifts, and they would cease to exercise a proper control over their public representatives. It was my bad fortune to pass through the last London County Council election as an unsuccessful candidate, and although the compounding system is in vogue in London, I may say that I never passed through an election in which the question of the rates bulked half so large as it did on that occasion. No doubt the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) recollects the poster which had reference to money and rates, but I venture to say that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow said with regard to this thing being impractical, and that the landlord would finally end by exacting a lump sum, was not quite accurate. There is nothing impractical in the landlord publishing a fair statement of his rent and rates. The County Council, with regard to the Caledonian-road buildings and a lot of other cases, do it, and there is no difficulty in it. I am sorry to have detained the House at such length, but I have done so because I have had some slight practical experience from the point of view of rate-fixing and rate-collecting authorities, and that is the reason why I have ventured to put before the House certain considerations which may lead hon. Members to the conclusion that there is something to be said for this system of compounding.

I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment of my right hon. Friend to omit this Clause. I may say that I have not in any way been con- verted by the eloquent speech of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Cleland), and I hope to be able to show that in many of the statements he has made he has been misled by his desire to see this system, which apparently he views with so much favour, inserted in the Bill. Whether this system be good or bad, the chief reason why I object to it is that it has nothing whatever to do with the object of this Bill. I remember a great number of Bills of this character which have been introduced—I think the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division was responsible for the introduction of the first and second Bill on this subject which was introduced in this House. I believe I am right in saying that of all the numerous Bills introduced with this object in view only a few of them have attempted to deal with this question of compounding. The real object of those Bills was to alter the system upon which houses were let in Scotch counties, and compounding has nothing whatever to do with that question. Compounding has nothing to do with the manner of letting houses in Scotland, and it is introducing a system which has proved bad in England, and which a vast majority of the people who have studied the question at all consider to be an extremely bad system, which has led to numerous abuses in England, and especially in London. I gather that the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division contested unsuccessfully an election for the London County Council, and he has expressed the opinion that the question of the rates had a considerable influence on that election. I quite agree with him; but amongst which class? It was not so much among the class who pay the rates directly as among the working classes who up to that time had been under the impression that they were not interested, and owing to that indifference great extravagances had been committed by the London County Council and the borough councils. I understood the hon. Member to say that the Report of the Royal Commission on this subject was not a practical one.

I said it was a doctrinaire Report.

Though that Report in theory might be very good, in practice it is very bad. The Royal Commission were unanimously of the opinion that

"it was most desirable that all classes of the community should, as far as possible, be made liable for the personal payment of rates in order that they may appreciate directly the effect of economical or extravagant administration."

That seems to me to be a very practical and business-like statement; and what it amounts to is that unless a man has to put his hand into his pocket and pay directly a certain sum he does not really feel that there is any necessity for economy or for insisting that the people who put their hands in his pocket shall take as little out as possible. I think the hon. Member opposite challenged my right hon. Friend (Mr. Scott Dickson) to produce a single case where the system of compounding had not resulted in an advantage to the occupier.

I did not say that. I asked if the right hon. Gentleman had gone to the trouble of getting from the assessment authorities in Scotland the amount lost under the present system of collecting the rates once a year.

I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. The memorandum put into my hands by the town clerk of Edinburgh says:—

"If the rate is collected through the landlord it may be that there will practically be no arrears. That, of course, is from the point of view of the municipality. No doubt they would be saved a certain amount of trouble for which they would otherwise have to pay. To that extent the system under the Bill would relieve the occupier who paid in full. The amount of the Commission will certainly exceed considerably the amount of the present arrears."

Therefore, the opinion of the town clerk of Edinburgh is practically opposite to the opinion expressed by the hon. Member opposite. The town clerk of Edinburgh thinks that under the system inaugurated in this Bill that the loss to the occupier will considerably exceed the commission which will have to be paid, and it will be greater than the arrears under the new system. I have some difficulty in understanding what is the state of things with regard to the arrears. It is said that the present arrears are less than 5 per cent., but it is assumed that the commission will be 15 per cent. It is admitted that under the Act of 1867 and 1868 the amount fixed is 15 per cent., and that on various occasions the amount has gone up to 25 per cent.

That is so, failing agreement.

There is no doubt a great many landlords are anxious to make agreements, because it saves them a certain amount of trouble. They hope that by collecting the rates themselves and receiving the commission they will gain a little bit. I do not blame them in the least, but that does not touch the principle that the occupier should feel the responsibility of paying the rates himself. I know that in England attempts have been made by landlords to combine together, actuated by the motive that it is right the tenant should pay the rates, but the agents told them that other landlords would not combine, and that the consequence would be they would find their tenants would soon go to the landlords who paid the rates, and their houses would be empty. That is why there has not been any great outcry against the present system. The town clerk said that, supposing the commission was 15 per cent., it would be an excess of 10 per cent. on the present losses in arrears. That puts a burden upon the occupier of £7,000 a year, and to that must be added the corresponding sum applicable to the poor, the school, and the water rates. That would bring the amount up to at least £13,000 per year, which is more than a penny rate in the £. He goes on to say that is a very serious new burden to place upon the occupiers in Edinburgh, and he asks what is the supposed compensating advantage which can justify such an imposition. The outstanding fact is that the Edinburgh occupiers are being mulcted to the extent of £13,000 per annum in order to pay to the landlords a commission they do not want. According to this Gentleman, we have the extraordinary sight of the Lord Advocate, who has been going about the country denouncing the landlords, and the Radical party proposing to pay £13,000 a year to landlords, who do not want it. The hon. Gentleman said that the tenant could be easily informed by the landlord what the amount of the rate would be, but the rate is collected once a year in Scotland, and as houses are let from May to May and the rate is levied in October, all the landlord will be able to tell the occupier will be what the rate of last year was, and the occupier will probably have to pay, not upon what the rate really is, but upon what it was. Unless I am wrong, you are imposing an impossible task upon the landlord and doing everything to encourage discontent and disagreement between occupier and landlord. The landlord will tell the occupier the rate of last year, and, if the occupier finds the present year's rate has been reduced, he will think he is being defrauded by the landlord, and bad blood will result. It may be right or it may be wrong to introduce a system of compounding—I think it is extremely wrong—but it cannot be right to introduce it in a Bill which has nothing to do with the subject. This Clause is also an enfranchising Clause. I am informed it is going to put 20,000 new voters on the list in Glasgow. If, as I venture to say, a rate-compounding clause should not be introduced in a Bill dealing with the period for which houses are let in Glasgow, still less should an enfranchising clause be introduced in it. It would have been very much more candid on the part of the Government if they had brought in a Bill dealing with elections in Scotland. There is no reason why they should not have done so; they have brought in a Bill dealing with elections in London. We should then have known what we were discussing, but now an English Member who does not know all the intricacies of Scotch Bills cannot be expected to know there is an enfranchising clause in this Bill. I venture to say there are not 20 English Members, certainly not on this side of the House, who know this fact. For that reason, because I believe a very important change is being introduced in the franchise of Scotland by this Clause, I shall vote against it.

The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London seems concerned because, under this Bill, some persons will pay their full rates who have never paid them before, and will consequently be entitled to obtain the franchise. If a system exists which makes it difficult for certain men to pay their full rates, and if payment of full rates be a qualification for the franchise, surely it is wise and proper to pass a measure by which full payment will be made more easy, and, if that has the effect of increasing the number of voters, I, at all events, shall not regret the circumstances. What we are doing is to place ourselves on all fours with the procedure in England. I do not think, looking at the discrimination of the English electors, the hon. Baronet need be greatly concerned. I know the effect of a broader franchise has not been to increase the Radical benches, but rather to encourage the Conservative element.

I was looking at it from the point of view of principle, and, whether it increases the Radical or the Conservative Members, you have no right to introduce an enfranchising Bill under the guise of altering the terms of letting.

We do not introduce it as a Franchise Bill. We make no difference in the law what- ever. If it be the law that a man votes because he pays his poor rates under this Bill, we make no change in regard to that. Now I pass to the question of compounding. I regret sincerely that the hon. Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson) should have associated himself with this attack on the Bill by a side wind. The landlord interest has done its best to thwart this measure at every stage; it has been unsuccessful in its efforts, and the frontal attack has now been changed to an attack in flank. Compounding is an essential part of a Bill of this nature. I have in my time introduced eight or ten Bills, and on the strength of my experience I declare that the compounding of rates is an essential proposition if you are to carry out the scheme which this Bill has been framed to carry out. Every English authority has, after all, passed through the same process. I should like to read an extract from a letter by Mr. Wodehouse, formerly an accountant at Birkenhead, then at Burnley, and now of Westminster. He states that at Burnley pressure put upon the council was so great that they had to adopt compounding, because people declared they could more easily pay 1s. per week than 50s. a year. At Birkenhead the system of compounding proved the cheaper way of collecting the rates. He (Mr. Woodhouse) did not think any council would willingly go back to direct rate collection. I need only add that in this book will be found evidence by many closely connected with the collection of rates to the effect that they have been driven to compounding as the only solution of the problem of dealing with the taxation on short tenancies. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Cleland) quoted the Local Taxation Commission, which, although agreeing on the abstract principle that compounding is not desirable, pointed out that it is the only possible way in which the business can be managed in certain localities. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton suggested that the taxpayer who does not pay his rates directly does not take the same keen interest in public expenditure. But that surely does not apply in the case of Imperial expenditure. The man who only pays indirect taxation, in the shape of duty on tea, spirits and tobacco takes a keen interest in Parliamentary elections, and I suggest the same observation applies to the municipal taxpayer. The system of compounding is not new in Scotland. In the Glasgow Act of 1866 it was allowed in the case of lets under £4; it was also allowed in the case of water rates under £10, while in the Burgh Police Act, 1892, the principle was also embodied. As a matter of fact, landlords are already compounding, although they do not appear to be aware of it. The rates in Scotland are divided into two parts, one being claimed from the landlord and the other from the tenant, and, although the landlord pays one-half, it is actually the tenant who in the end pays it in increased rent. The principle is therefore already established, and we only want to make it perfectly clear to the tenant that it is he who really pays the rates. The system is working smoothly in Scotland, and I may quote a question and answer from the evidence taken by the Committee on this Bill. The witness said: There were three interests concerned—the tenant's, the factor's, and the landlord's. He was asked:—

"Are any of these dissatisfied with the state of affairs?"

The answer was:—

"I never heard a whisper of dissatisfaction."

I have been making inquiries all over England with a view to ascertaining the effect of compounding, and my experience has been that, except from a theoretical point of view, there is no complaint either by landlord or tenant or factor or middleman. I assert that if compounding is deleted from this Bill the Bill will be destroyed; it will then possess no advantage at all. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Central Division will not press his Amendment, as, if it is carried, it will certainly have the effect of defeating the purposes for which the Bill was introduced. I regard this question as essentially a tenants' question. The Bill has been called a Corporation Relief Bill, a Factors' Relief Bill, and a Landlords'

I regret to say that I cannot accept this Amendment, and my reasons for not doing so have been so admirably stated by the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. Cleland), and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Cross), that I think it is unnecessary to add anything. As in the past, so in the future the occupier will pay his share of the rates and we have taken great pains in Clause 17 of this Bill to leave him under no misapprehension on the subject.

moved, after the word "be" ["as shall be fixed by the sheriff"], to insert the words "failing agreement."

I beg to second the Amendment.

It appears to me that this Amendment would be prejudicial in its effect, and therefore I cannot accept it.

I hope that the Lord Advocate will not insist upon inserting the words "due inquiry." There might be what the sheriff would regard as due inquiry without calling the parties before him at all.

I have substituted these words in deference to an argument which was used upstairs by the hon. and learned Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Clyde), who pointed out that the leaving of the words "after hearing parties" in the Clause would be a source of litigation, and of having appeals running through the whole of the courts.

I beg to move to leave out the word "final" ["The decision of the sheriff shall be final"] and to insert the words "shall be subject to appeal at the instance of any owner interested to either division of the Court of Session." I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to accept this Amendment. It is based on a recommendation in the Report of the Departmental Committee. This question of compounding allowances to owners may involve a considerable amount of money, and I think there ought to be the right of appeal.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the Departmental Committee recommended that there should foe the right of appeal, and really I have not a strong view one way or another. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that we have no provision in this Bill for the sheriff hearing parties and keeping a note of the evidence. It is impossible to bring questions like these before an appellate court for trial, where you have no note of the evidence taken before the court of first instance. I would recommend my right hon. Friend not to press the Amendment, because it would necessitate a number of new provisions for taking notes of evidence before there could be an appeal.

This is a matter of legal procedure, and the questions which will arise should not require prolonged litigation. The sheriff will be called on in his public and responsible capacity, and I am quite sure that the confidence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Scott-Dickson) in him will be shared by almost everyone. The sheriff is an impartial and competent authority to settle matters, and there should be no further power to enter into litigous proceedings. I might further point out that an appeal is allowed in the course of five years.

moved in Clause 13, after the word "election"["Parliamentary or other election"], to insert the words "Provided that any occupier who shall have failed before the twentieth day of June in any year to pay to the owner of any dwelling-house occupied by him during the year ending on the fifteenth day of May preceding any assessment which such owner was entitled to recover from him during the currency of that year under the provisions of this Act, or who shall have been exempted from payment of any burgh rate during the currency of that year, shall ipso facto be disqualified from being registered as a voter or to vote at any Parliamentary or other election. It shall be the duty of every owner to whom any occupier shall have failed to pay any assessment as aforesaid, on or before the thirtieth day of June in each year, to forward to the collector of the assessing authority a statement of the names and addresses of all such defaulting occupiers, and the collector shall, along with a list of the occupiers who have been exempted from payment of any assessment during the currency of that year, forthwith: forward such statement to the assessor, who shall proceed in the manner directed by Section twenty-eight of the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900."

I beg to second the Amendment. I think that it goes even further than the hon. Baronet has indicated. It is to secure that a compounder who has not paid his rates shall be brought into the same position as one who is rated in his own name and does not pay his rates. Why should a compounder be made specially privileged and not deprived of the franchise when he does not pay, when a man who is rated in his own name and fails to pay is disfranchised?

It is because we desire that this Bill should not be a franchise Bill that we cannot accept this Amendment.

I should like to know whether my hon. Friends are right or wrong in saying that the effect of this

The rates are paid, that is quite clear.

As I understand my hon. Friend that is not clear. The rates are paid by the landlord, and if the compounding ratepayer does not pay the landlord he will never be disfranchised The compounding ratepayer, under this Amendment, if he did not pay the landlord, would not be entitled to the franchise.

This Amendment merely proposes that where the landlord has paid the rates, and the occupier has not paid the landlord, the occupier shall not be entitled to the vote.

We leave the law exactly as it stands.

The franchise law passed in 1832 was that all householders in boroughs who paid an annual rental of £10 were entitled to the vote. Then came the amended law in 1868, that in all boroughs householders were entitled to vote contingent upon payment of the poor rate. But it was an express condition that this should be in addition to, and not in substitution of, the Franchise of 1832, and consequently all persons who occupied houses of over £10 a year were entitled to the franchise, whether they paid the poor rate or whether they did not. Payment of the poor rate only affects those who occupy houses of under £10 annual rent. Therefore, the law in Scotland is left exactly as it was.

moved, after the word "burgh"["circulating in the burgh"], to insert the words "and the adoption of this Act may be similarly rescinded." This is a proposal to allow burghs, if they find they have made a mistake in adopting the Act, to rescind it. If a burgh adopts the Act voluntarily, surely the natural sequence is that the burgesses may, if they think well, rescind it?

I second the Amendment, which is a small one. The word "small" is one that the Lord Advocate is very fond of. I think he will admit that this is a very fair and reasonable and small Amendment.

I cannot agree to insert these words. The view of the Government is that a small burgh of 10,000 inhabitants or under ought to consider well before it adopts this Act. Once it has adopted it, that decision must be irrevocable.

The small burghs which have the option of bringing themselves under this Act ought to have the option, if they find they have made a mistake, of rescinding their resolution. It should not be like the laws of the Medes and Persians—irrevocable.

I always thought that the Scotch people were a righting race, but no English Member would be content to be treated in the way the Lord Advocate treats the Scottish Members. He has given no reasons at all for his refusal. He says: "The Government have decided; the Government says this or that"—generally in a sentence, and then he sits down again. That may be good enough for Scotland; it may be the way its Members are accustomed to be treated; but if the Lord Advocate thinks that that

I do not propose to divide the House against the third reading. I only desire to renew the protest I have already made against the Compound-

As representing a small Scottish minority on these benches, I cordially support the words of my Noble Friend. The attitude of the Lord Advocate has been in strong contrast to that which he showed upstairs. He has not deigned to give us any reasons whatever. He says: "That is our decision, and you must accept it," or "The law is so-and-so, and that, therefore, is the reason"—as on this Amendment. I strongly protest against our having no argument but the ipse dixit of the Lord Advocate.

moved, in Section (1) after the word "canal"["and for the purposes of lighting vehicles and vessels used on any such railway, tramway, or canal"], to insert the words, "and may also, with the consent of the Board of Trade, supply at any point within that area electricity for use at docks situate partly within and partly without that area."

The hon. Member is correct in thinking they would be able to supply under Clause 6; but, even if that would not be so, in the case he has in mind the West Ham Borough Council could supply the Victoria Docks under the existing law. I understand they are partly in East and partly in West Ham. It will be possible, under Clause 18 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, to supply them. There is, therefore, no necessity for the Amendment.

moved, at the end of the Clause, to insert the following new Section:—

I accept the Amendment.

moved to leave out the Clause. I understand the hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment I have on the Paper, but will agree to the omission of the Clause.

The Board of Trade accept the Amendment with much regret. They would prefer to have the Clause as it is printed in the Bill.

rose to move at the end of Section (2) to insert the following new section:—

proposed to omit the Clause. Before the hon. Gentleman moves, I desire to say, in order to expedite the passage of the Bill, that I wish this Clause to be deleted. I could not accept the Amendment, and I think there might be difficulties with another place. Therefore, in order to expedite and facilitate the passage of the Bill, I move to omit the Clause.

moved, after the word "gas" ["belongs to any gas undertakers"], to insert the words "or water."