asked, having regard to the condition under which the British occupation of Wei-Hei-Wei was begun, namely, to continue so long as Port Arthur was held by Russia, and that condition having long since terminated, if he Would say when it was proposed to evacuate Wei-Hei-Wei and restore that port and territory to China?

The lease of Port Arthur has not terminated, and in any case I should not be prepared to enter upon any discussion of the question except with the Chinese Government when the proper time arrived.

asked the Secretary of State if he will state the amount of the Chinese indemnity to the United States of America in respect of the Boxer outbreak in 1900, which the United States Government remitted for the education of Chinese students in the United States; and, having regard to the losses which the British Government assist certain British subjects in imposing upon China in respect of railway projects, whether an equal sum will be set apart by this Government, or by its protégés, for the education of Chinese students in the United Kingdom?

I understand that a joint Resolution was passed by Congress and approved by the President of the United States in 1907, reducing the indemnity to be paid by China from 24,440,778 dollars to 13,655,492 dollars. As regards the British claim, that of His Majesty's Government was assessed as far as possible only on the basis of actual expenditure. Should it eventually be found when fully liquidated that there is any surplus, it will be returned to the Chinese Government, and its disposal would be left to their discretion. As regards the last part of the question, I am not prepared to answer further questions conveying unfounded imputations, such as those contained therein.

asked what British force was specified by the Protocol, signed by the Powers after the Boxer outbreak in 1900, to remain in North China for the preservation of order; and for how long; what was the entire strength of the British forces maintained there now; whether they were maintained there at China's expense; how many of these troops were white men, and how many were men of colour; and whether he was aware that the maintenance of troops of an inferior race in their country was resented by the Chinese?

The Final Peace Protocol of 1901 provided that each Power had the right to maintain a permanent guard in its Legation quarter and to occupy certain points between Peking and the sea Under this agreement a total of about 8,000 troops was maintained in North China for several years, about 2,000 of whom were British. These troops are maintained at the expense of the country to which they belong, and not of China. No time-limit was specified in the Protocol of 1901, but the question of their reduction has been, and still is, under consideration. The latest information I have shows that there are 64 British officers and 1,025 European British troops, 17 Indian officers, and 805 Indian troops in North China. I have no reason to suppose that the presence of the latter is in any way resented by the Chinese, nor are they of inferior race, and I repudiate entirely the description of them given in the question.

Does India bear any proportion of the expenses of these troops in China?

I must ask the hon. Member to give notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State whether he had any official information showing that Russian troops have committed excesses on the life and property of the Persians in the district of Tabriz; and if he can make any statement to the House on the matter?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State if he would inform the House by what means it was suggested in any report in his possession that the Canton-Kowloon Railway, 126 miles long, could ever, in the absence of docks at Hong-Kong, the construction of which would cost some millions sterling, successfully compete in goods traffic with the navigable river, 90 miles, which connected Canton with Hong-Kong, and had cost nothing; whether His Majesty's Government intended to co-operate with the promoters of this railway which the Chinese would not use for goods, in forcing China to favour the railway at the expense of her waterways and of her taxpayers; whether the chief British accountant of this railway was now under arrest on a charge of embezzling large sums of Chinese money; and whether, for the sake of British prestige in China, he would institute a public sworn inquiry into the working of this railway project ab initio ?

I have no information which would enable me to answer these questions, and I see no reason why I should interfere.

asked the Secretary of State whether his attention has been called to the treatment of political prisoners in Russian gaols; and whether any protests will be made by the English Government against such proceedings?

I cannot undertake to answer questions or make statements about internal affairs of European countries unless they are based on special Treaty rights.

May I ask if any reliable or accurate information is available in this country with regard to the treatment of prisoners in Russia?

No, Sir. I have no authoritative information on the subject.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not know the statements extensively made by Prince Krapotkin upon the subject, and does he not know the feelings of the people of this country in reference to these outrages?

asked the Secretary of State whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the probable date of the withdrawal of Russian troops from Northern Persia; and whether the Russian troops at Kazvin are now engaged in preparing winter quarters?

I can add nothing to previous answers. Persia is, I hope, on the way to better things than existed under the late régime; but as long as things are in a transition stage it is difficult to make definite statements as to dates, or as to whether troops will be retained there, and, if so, how many, during the winter.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that the Russians have the smallest intention of evacuating the country, and is it a fact that the Russian troops are preparing winter quarters at Kazvin?

No, Sir. I have no information that they are preparing winter quarters, and, as I said in my answer, it would be impossible to state whether troops would be maintained there during the winter, and, if so, how many. With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I should have thought that the history of recent events would, even, in his opinion, entitle me to say that the statements which the Russians themselves have made with regard to their policy we have every reason to believe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Consuls of France, Spain, and England had presented a joint remonstrance to the Sultan of Morocco against the cruel treatment of prisoners of war; and, if so, how he justified this interference in the internal affairs of a foreign State?

The British representative at Tangier has joined those of all the other Treaty Powers in addressing to the Sultan a collective Note asking for an assurance that mutilation of prisoners should not be repeated. The desired assurance has been obtained. The circumstances are, I believe, without parallel elsewhere where there are foreign representatives, and the action of the Powers does not appear to me to stand in need of any justification.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the British Government consider it to be their duty to interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign friendly Power like that of Morocco while taking no notice of the internal affairs of Russia?

Because there is no parallel between the two cases.

Is it because Morocco is weak and Russia is strong?

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that details are published on high authority that atrocities are quite as great in Russian prisons as in Morocco?

I entirely deny that anything corresponding to what has taken place in Morocco has taken place in any European country.

Is the high authority to whom the hon. Member for East Mayo referred a man who was himself exiled from Russia for unlawful acts?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the arrest of Senor Ferrer by the Spanish Government for alleged complicity in the recent Barcelona riots; whether he had any information regarding the cruelties perpetrated upon such prisoners at present in Barcelona gaols; and whether, in view of the international reputation of Senor Ferrer as an educationist, he is prepared to make representations to the Spanish Government with a view to securing his proper treatment while under arrest?

I cannot undertake to answer questions or make statements about internal affairs of European countries unless they are based on special Treaty rights.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to the facts stated in the question, and also having regard to the fact that humane considerations are at any rate calling forth protests from all civilised countries, there is not sufficient justification for making such representations to be found in the fact that close relationship exists between the occupants of the throne of this country and that of Spain?

If, in the case of everyone who puts a question on the Paper, I undertake to give an answer upon matters of this kind, we should not be on speaking terms with any other country.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland in how many schools in the circuit of the senior inspector of National schools, Belfast, has the standard of efficiency been reduced during the past three years; and how much money has been thereby returned to the Treasury?

The Commissioners of National Education consider that it would not be in the public interest, or tend to the efficiency of their inspection organisation, to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the latter portion of the question, they cannot admit that the teachers have been deprived of any money to which they were entitled under the Commissioners' rules and regulations.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make a comparison between the action of the inspector of this district and the action of inspectors in other districts?

I know enough about the inspection of schools to know how dangerous and undesirable it is to interfere with any inspector who does his duty. I cannot enter into any comparison between the activity of one inspector and another.

asked the Chief Secretary if he will obtain information from the county Longford Constabulary regarding the state of two wooden bridges on the public road leading from Longford to Leitrim, in the Ballinamuck police district, in order that the Upper Erne Drainage Committee, who are responsible for those death traps, may be compelled to erect suitable structures?

If the bridges referred to are in charge of the trustees of a drainage district it is open to the persons who use them to complain to the Board of Works, who have power to move in the matter. The information given in the question is not sufficient to enable the Board to identify the bridges. The constabulary can hardly be expected to give an opinion on the subject.

When the particulars have been forwarded will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make communications?

As the Board have no means of identifying these bridges, I do not think very much can be done. If information is given to me to identify the two bridges I will forward it to the Board of Works.

asked the Chief Secretary how many teachers (men) are eligible by rules and recommended by inspectors for promotion to first-of-first grade, and how many will be promoted; and will any of the former, ranked first-of-first class, be debarred promotion owing to standard numbers?

The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they have recently promoted 31 male teachers, who had qualified for promotion, to the first division, and 67 to the second division of the first grade. Twenty-six of those promoted to the first division, and 39 of those promoted to the second division, can receive no financial benefit until vacancies occur in those divisions. The Commissioners do not consider that it would be in the interests of the public service to say how many teachers have been recommended for promotion by the inspectors.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to the sale of tine estate of Sir George Colthurst, Rathcoole, county Cork, whether the Estates Commissioners received an application from the evicted tenant, Mr. Martin Forrest, for reinstatement in his former holding at Rathcoole, and Boulamore, from which he was evicted in August, 1886; if so, what action they have taken, or propose to take, in regard to his case; are the Commissioners aware that this tenant expended money and labour in reclamation and general improvements prior to his eviction; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, they will make a special effort to procure his reinstatement in his former holding or, in the alternative, to procure him an equivalent holding in the neighbourhood?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that Forrest's former holding is in the occupation of other tenants. His application has been noted for consideration in the allotment of such untenanted land as the Commissioners may acquire.

asked the Chief Secretary what decision have the Estates Commissioners arrived at with regard to the application of James Sexton, made in May or June, 1907, as next of kin to James Harte, deceased, to be restored to the lands of Aughnashuinagh, county Longford, from which Harte was evicted in 1885 or 1886; and whether inquiry has been made into the facts of this case?

The Estates Commissioners have not received any application from James Sexton for reinstatement in the holding mentioned in the question.

asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the grabbing of the bog of the tenants of the Sandford Moore estate, county Longford, by one Thomas Bennett, who has moved the court for an interlocutory injunction; and whether the Estates Commissioners propose to take any steps to prevent the grabbing of tenants' turbary rights when engaged in buying their holdings?

The question of the turbary on this estate will be inquired into by the Estate Commissioners when the property is being dealt with in order of priority, but they have no power to interfere in any legal proceedings which may have been instituted in reference thereto.

asked the Chief Secretary what decision the Estates Commissioners have come to regarding the application of Patrick Heslin, D.C., of Aghaboy, to be restored to the holding from which he was evicted at Aghaboy; and, if the same is not possible, will an equivalent holding be found for him elsewhere?

The Estates Commissioners have considered the application made by Heslin, who is at present in occupation of a holding of 22 acres, for rein-statement in a holding of eight acres which has been purchased by the present occupier under the Land Purchase Acts. The Commissioners have decided not to take any action on the application.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that, in connection with the sale of Mr. Patrick Rhatighan's estate, at Lisameen, county Longford, a middle landlord, named Mrs. Ebbit, refuses to allow one of his tenants, Mrs. Maria Ross, to purchase at any price; and whether, in this case, Mrs. Ross will be regarded as an under tenant, and allowed to purchase accordingly?

The question whether Mrs. Ross should, for the purposes of sale, be declared a tenant of the land held by her as a sub-tenant, will be considered by the Estates Commissioners under Section 15 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, when the estate is being dealt with in order of priority.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Land Commission has any power to inquire into the management of bogs by trustees appointed thereof; and, if so, will an inquiry be made into the management of the Granard estate bogs, and, in particular, into the complaint of Thomas M'Cormack, of Garrowshill, county Longford, who has been deprived of his bog in the Ohill and Ennisbegs bog, to which, by his vesting order, he was entitled?

The position of the tenant purchasers on the Granard estate with regard to turbary was very fully explained in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland to a question on 26th February, 1906. The Land Commission have no power to intervene as suggested, but any tenant purchaser who is deprived of his rights has his remedy at law.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the name of Mrs. Anne O'Brien, of Golden Hills, county Tipperary, was placed on the list of legally qualified evicted tenants for over two years, same being officially notified to her by Mr. Guiry, Estates Commissioners' inspector; that her name appeared on the list of evicted tenants to whom parcels of land were allotted on the de Montalt estate, county Tipperary, on 14th April, 1907; and that in less than one month from the latter date her name was removed from the list; will he say on what grounds her name was so suddenly removed, the Commissioners refusing to state their reasons or to grant her an interview; and, if they acted within their discretion, is their discretion the Act of Parliament itself, apart from the justice of Mrs. O'Brien's claim?

As regards the facts of this case I have nothing to add to my reply to the questions on the same subject asked by the hon. Member on the 9th instant. As I then stated the disposal of parcels of untenanted land and the selection of the persons to whom they are to be given is a matter within the powers of the Estates Commissioners. It would be contrary to the established practice to state the reasons by which they were actuated in the exercise of the discretion vested in them by law.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he can say when the annual Report of the Estates Commissioners was laid upon the Table of the House; and what is the cause of the delay in its being issued to Members of this House?

The Report was laid on the Table on the 2nd inst. It is in the printers' hands, and I understand that it will be issued to Members of the House on Monday next.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that reports have already appeared in the Irish newspapers' on this subject?

I am not aware of it, and, if that is so, I greatly regret it, as this kind of thing causes me much personal annoyance.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has recently, on the recommendation of Lord Kitchener, arranged to improve the status of the native officers of the Indian Army by appointing them magistrates in cantonments?

The Secretary of State has not heard officially that this step has been taken, but he is inquiring.

asked the Undersecretary for India whether the Indian Government still adhere to the theory that plague in man is due to bites of infected rat fleas; and, if they do not, what theory are they now acting on, and have they made such changes in their administration as are necessary to meet the new situation?

The connection between bubonic plague in man and plague in rats is well established, and rat destruction continues to hold a prominent place among the preventive measures adopted by the Government of India. As I have already stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Montgomery District, the steps taken to prevent plague have been published through the Moral and Material Progress Report and other publications. Besides these special measures, the Government of India are now considering an important scheme for the improvement of the sanitary service.

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the statement in the public Press to the effect that the rat-flea theory is entirely disproved.

I have not seen the statement to which the hon. Member refers. A well-known medical authority who has taken up an independent attitude on this question does not generally agree that this theory has been disproved.

Is it not a fact that the plague has now very greatly abated, and that there is a fair hope of its disappearance?

Yes; there has been a considerable abatement.

Will the hon. Gentleman agree to having a Paper printed and circulated upon this question of infection by rat-fleas in India?

I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

Has the President of the Board of Trade been consulted on this question of infection being carried by rats?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in consequence of the "Maori" and other disasters taking place on the coast of Cape Colony, the Government can bring pressure to bear on the Cape Colony authorities for the better lighting of the coast; if he is aware that the Lighthouse Commission in 1906 recommended that a lighthouse should be erected at Slangkop as an urgent necessity; and if he intends taking action in the matter?

This question should have been addressed to my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. I have seen the Report of the Lighthouse Commission in 1906 to which reference is made, and I understand that, having regard to the number of casualties that have occurred off this coast during the last 30 years, the Board of Trade share the view which was expressed by that Commission that it is desirable that a first-class light should be established at Slangkop. Such a recommendation was made by the Court of Inquiry held at Cape Town in 1905 which investigated the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamship "Clan Monroe" off Slangkop Point. I am informed that the Secretary of State will be ready to convey to the Cape Government any recommendation which the Board of Trade may consider it desirable to make as a result of any inquiry which may take place into the loss of the "Maori."

May I have a copy of that answer, because I have not heard a word of it.

It will be circulated in the usual way.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a fishing boat sailing in the Moray Firth on 10th September narrowly escaped being struck by a shell from a man-of-war during gun-practice there; whether, in view of the danger of such occurrences, he will cause gun-practice to be deferred until after 20th September, when the fishing fleets will have left for English ports; and whether he will cause greater care to be taken in making known the times when gun-practices take place?

No report upon the incident referred to has been received by the Admiralty; and an inquiry will be made.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any compensation is granted when vessels are damaged during gun practice, or whether the Admiralty is entirely free from liability?

Compensation is certainly granted where it is shown the Admiralty are in fault. I cannot answer the question as to whether the Admiralty are free from liability.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the permanently-appointed factory surgeon for the Hull district is a medical doctor in connection with the sick club at the firm of Messrs. Blundell, Spence and Company, Hull; whether the Government allows the permanently-appointed factory surgeons to act as medical examiners to sick clubs for private firms; and whether he intends taking action in the matter?

I beg to answer this question on behalf of my right hon. Friend. I have no information as to whether the certifying surgeon at Hull is connected with the sick club referred to, but it is a very usual thing for certifying surgeons to be connected with clubs under the management either of employers or of workmen, and in some districts it would be difficult to find a doctor who was not so connected. If there is any allegation of grievance in this particular case I shall be happy to make inquiry on receiving a statement of the details from the hon. Member.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death from beri-beri, on 11th November, 1908, of an Asiatic fire- man named Sebathella, whilst serving on the steamer "Clan Macalister," of Glasgow; whether he is aware that this disease is attributed to insufficient and improper food; whether he can state how long the seaman had served on the vessel, and whether he was medically examined before joining; and whether any previous cases of death from this disease have occurred on this vessel?

Yes, Sir; the fireman Serang Sebathella died of beri-beri on board the "Clan Macalister," near Bangkok. The native log-book containing particulars of the occurrence was delivered up to the authorities at Chittagong. The vessel is now at Philadelphia. The cause of beriberi has not yet been definitely ascertained, but it is probable that bad and insufficient food predisposes to the disease. I have, however, arranged for a medical inquiry in a case which recently occurred, and hope that some useful information may be elicited as to the cause and treatment of the disease. In the present case the owners state that the food supplied was considerably in excess of the official scale. I am not aware how long the man had served in this vessel, but as he was serang it is probable that he had had previous sea service. He had been medically examined before joining. No deaths from beri-beri on board this steamer except those which occurred at Bangkok have been reported during the last three years.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death from consumption on 21st March, 1909, of an Asiatic fireman named Sk Ebrahim Sk Mahomed, whilst serving on the steamer "Singapore," of London; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether steps were taken to isolate him from the rest of the crew; what was the temperature of the engine room; how much coal the engine-room hands were required to work each 24 hours; and whether any previous cases of death from this disease have occurred on this vessel?

Yes, Sir. The fireman referred to in the question was believed to be suffering from acute rheumatism, and was put off duty on 8th February, but died of consumption on 21st March. He was shipped at Bombay in accordance with the regulations, and had served three months and 29 days on board. He had been medically examined before joining, but was not isolated during his illness. The temperature of the stokehold was not recorded, but the man had not been in the stokehold for some time before his death. The number of firemen and trimmers was 15, and the average consumption of coal 24 tons per day. No previous death from consumption has occurred on board this vessel during the last three years.

asked the President of the. Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death from phthisis, on 29th December, 1908, of an Asiatic fireman named Man Kai, whilst serving on the steamer "Peleus," of Liverpool; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had any previous sea service; whether steps were taken to isolate him from the rest of the crew; what was the temperature of the engine-room; how much coal the engine-room hands were required to work each 24 hours; and whether any previous cases of death from this disease have occurred on this vessel?

Yes, Sir; the fireman Man Kai died on board the "Peleus" of phthisis about 6 weeks after leaving Liverpool on a voyage to Japan. He was attended by the ship's surgeon, but I am not aware whether he was isolated during his illness; he had been medically examined before sailing, and had served over seven months in the "Peleus" after reshipment. The temperature of the engine-room was from 83 degrees to 92 degrees, and of the stokehold 86 degrees to 92 degrees. The total coal consumption averaged 62 tons per day. No previous death from phthisis has occurred on board this vessel during the last three years.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the suicide at sea, on 2nd November, 1908, of an Asiatic coal trimmer, named Arfanallee Kabeer, whilst serving on the steamer "Cardiganshire," of Liverpool; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long had he served on the vessel, and whether he had any previous sea service; whether he was on duty at the time; what was the temperature of the engine-room; how much coal the engine-room hands were required to work each 24 hours; whether the engineer's log-book has been produced to the Board of Trade surveyors; and whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this vessel?

Yes, Sir. The man had had no previous sea service, and had only been three days in the ship when he jumped overboard during his watch. He had been medically examined. It appears from an extract from the engineer's logbook, which was produced to the Board of Trade surveyors, that the average temperature of the engine-room and bunkers was 102 degs. and of the stokehold 104 degs. on the day of the occurrence. The coal worked per man was about 1½ tons in 24 hours. No other case of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance has occurred in this vessel during the last three years.

May I ask whether there is any means of preventing the temperature of the stokeholds being of such excessive heat?

This is a very difficult matter, and is one which has engaged the attention of the Board of Trade for a considerable time past. Inquiries are constantly being made, and instructions are, as far as possible, given that stokeholds shall be ventilated in the best possible manner.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death from beri-beri of an Asiatic coal trimmer, named Rohamattola, on 16th November, 1908, whilst serving on s.s. "Clan Macalister," of Glasgow; whether he is aware that this disease is attributed to insufficient and improper food; whether he can state how long the seaman had served on the vessel; whether he was medically examined before joining; and whether any previous cases of death from this disease have occurred on this vessel?

Yes, Sir. The trimmer referred to in the question died of beriberi on board the "Clan Macalister" at Bangkok. The native log - book containing particulars of the occurrence was delivered up to the authorities at Chitta-gong. The vessel is now at Philadelphia. The cause of beri-beri has not yet been definitely ascertained, but it is probable that bad and insufficient food predisposes to the disease. In this case the owners state that the food was considerably in excess of the official scale. I am not aware how long the man had served on board the vessel; he had been medically examined before joining. No deaths from beri-beri on board this steamer, except those which occurred at Bangkok, have been reported during the last three years.

May I ask whether any complaints were made by any of these Asiatics before their death or by their representatives after their death as regards the food or accommodation?

No, Sir, not so far as I am aware. I have, stated that the food was in excess of the scale.

May I ask whether the improper food of these seamen was Chinese pork?

No, Sir, I am not aware that it was Chinese pork, nor was I informed it was improper food.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if these seamen make complaints about the food they are persecuted?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death from beri-beri of an Asiatic fireman named How Luk, on 12th March, 1909, whilst serving on the steamer "Courtfield," of London; whether he is aware that this disease is attributed to insufficient and improper food; whether he can state how long the seaman had served on the vessel, and whether he was medically examined before joining; and whether any previous cases of death from this disease have occurred on this vessel?

Yes, Sir. The fireman How Luk was taken ill on 1st February on a voyage from Sydney to Antwerp, and died on board the "Courtfield" on 12th March, two days after arrival in port. The symptoms were like those of rheumatism, but the port doctor pronounced the disease to be polymyelitis, or beri-beri. The cause of beri-beri has not yet been definitely ascertained, but it is probable that bad and insufficient food predisposes to the disease. I have, however, no reason to suppose that the food on board the "Courtfield" was bad or insufficient. The man had been on board for three months and twelve days, and had been medically examined before joining. No other death from beri-beri on board this vessel has been reported during the last three years.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the disappearance at sea on 22nd February, 1909, of an Asiatic coal trimmer, named Meajan Tajan, whilst serving on the steamer "Baron Fairlie," of Ardrossan; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had any previous sea service; whether he was on duty at the time; what was the temperature of the engine-room; how much coal the engine-room hands were required to work each 24 hours; whether the engineer's log-book has been produced to the Board of Trade surveyors; and whether any other cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this vessel?

Yes, Sir. The man had been medically examined before joining, and had been on board for three months and nine days, but I am not aware whether he had had previous sea service. He was not on duty at the time of his disappearance. The number of firemen and trimmers was 14, and the coal consumption was 22 tons per day. As, the vessel has not been in the United Kingdom since the date of the occurrence the Board of Trade surveyors have not yet had an opportunity of seeing the engineer's log or ascertaining the temperatures, but the owners state that the temperature of the engine-room was 95 degrees. No other case of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance has occurred in this vessel during the last three years.

Do I understand, when the engineer's log is examined, a reply will be sent stating what it states?

I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as we get the information.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the disappearance at sea of Wong Pui, a Lascar fireman, on 24th March, 1909, whilst serving on the steamship "Laertes," of Liverpool; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining, and how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had any previous sea service; whether he was on duty at the time; what was the temperature of the engine-room; how much coal the engine-room hands were required to work each 24 hours; whether the engineer's log-book has been produced to the Board of Trade surveyors; and whether any other cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this vessel?

Yes, Sir; the fireman Wong Pui disappeared two days after joining the "Laertes" at Hong Kong for her voyage to Amsterdam. He appears to have had previous sea service, and had been medically examined before joining. I am not aware whether he was on duty at the time of his disappearance. The owners report that the temperature of the engine-room was from 106 degrees to 110 degrees, and of the stokehold 96 degrees to 100 degrees, and that the coal consumption was about 44 tons per day. No other case of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance has occurred in this vessel during the last three years.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to the temperature in this case, he intends to take any action?

Are there no regulations to enable the Board of Trade to see such inhumanity is stopped?

I agree the temperature in this case was unduly high. I will make inquiries and see if something can be done.

If the hon. Gentleman has no power in the matter, will he consider the advisability of introducing legislation?

I must make inquiries first before I can give any pledge.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in 1906 the Port Talbot Railway and Docks Company and the Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Company entered into a private agreement with the Great Western Railway Company which gives the latter company running powers over the two former railways; that the Great Western Railway Company now has full control of the two other lines and consequently many men have been dismissed and changes made in the conditions of employment; and whether, in view of the alterations which have resulted from this agreement, he will again approach the companies and endeavour to persuade them to allow the same to be laid upon the Table of the House?

I am aware of the existence of the agreements referred to, which have been in operation for more than two years; but the Board of Trade have received no complaints respecting their effect upon conditions of employment. I do not think the Board of Trade could usefully communicate further with the companies on the matter, as suggested by the hon. Member.

If a primâ facie case of illegality in this working agreement is made out, will the hon. Gentleman take action?

If there is any illegality we shall naturally do what is proper. This working agreement has been in operation for more than two years, and there has been no complaint. There is no reason to believe that any of the recent discharges are due to it.

May I ask what powers the hon. Gentleman's Department has to compel a large company to carry out the conditions laid down by small companies with regard to their employés prior to the large company having taken those lines over?

I think the hon. Gentleman might give me notice of that question. It involves a knowledge of several Acts, some of which contain more than 100 clauses.

If these agreements continue to remain secret, how can the Board of Trade tell whether they are illegal or not?

asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of issuing regulations making it compulsory on all manufacturers of medicines liable to Patent Medicine Duty to print on the label on the bottle, or other vessel in which such is sold, the full ingredients of such bottles or vessels, as well as the diseases they purport to cure; and whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the size of the lettering of the Government stamp as a further pre- caution against ignorant people believing that the contents are guaranteed by the Government?

I am in communication with the Privy Council Office about the point raised in the first part of the question, but I am disposed to think that the matter may be one of sufficient importance for an inquiry by a Select Committee next Session. As regards the second part of the question, I am informed that new designs for medicine stamps have recently been adopted, and the printing plates are being prepared by the engravers. In the new designs it will be more clearly indicated that the stamp does not imply any Government guarantee.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether a Select Committee will be appointed next Session?

I am disposed to think it is desirable; but I will ascertain the general opinion on the subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain foreign countries it is made a matter of obligation to print the full prescription in the case of patent medicines?

I dare say that is so.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Ottolini, of Leeds, who, although a ratepayer and exercising the municipal vote since the death of her husband 38 years ago, has now been deprived of her old age pension on the ground that her husband was a foreigner; and whether, in view of the hardship involved to this old widow lady, any steps can or will be taken to restore to her the pension? I may mention that this woman is an Englishwoman, and of English birth.

I have received an appeal against the decision of the pension sub-committee in this case. Some further information is necessary before I can decide the appeal, and this I am taking steps to obtain.

asked whether there are any cases in which a woman deprived of a pension under the Old Age Pensions Act on the grounds that although an Englishwoman she was the wife of a foreigner, and that on being married again to a Britisher has qualified for a pension under the Act?

Cases of the kind mentioned have not come under my notice. I may, however, point out that although a woman in the circumstances stated in the question would, on her second marriage, become a British subject, it would be necessary, under the Old Age Pensions Act, that she should retain that nationality for 20 years in order to become entitled to a pension.

Am I to understand that the woman must be 90 years old before becoming entitled to a pension?

The first question is under investigation. As regards the second, the law is as I have stated, and if the hon. Member will refer to the Old, Age Pensions Act he will find it is so.

Is it possible for a woman to become a foreign subject without leaving the country at all?

If a woman marries a foreigner she follows the nationality of her husband.

If a foreign woman marries an Englishman is she still a foreigner?

No; she becomes of British nationality.

I have been asked to postpone my question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he can now place upon the Paper his Amendments in reference to the Stamp Duties, and in doing so I should like to point out that, inasmuch as this subject is to be dealt with on Tuesday, it is rather hard on me that it should be postponed till Monday, as I shall only get the reply on Tuesday morning.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in constructing the new fort at Templebreedy, in Cork Harbour, the War Department closed up an ancient right of way along the cliffs at this place; whether, when a like infringement of public rights took place at Black Nor Battery, Portland, the War Department constructed a new road from Portland Hill to Fortune Well, convenient to the pathway closed up; and whether, in the case of Temple-breedy Fort, a like course will be adopted by the Department for the convenience of inhabitants and visitors of this summer resort?

The War Department is unaware of the existence of any public right of way along the cliffs where Temple-breedy battery now stands, and no claim to such a right has been made by the local authority.

asked the Secretary for War the result of the inquiries into the allegations concerning the violation of the Fair Wage Clause by Messrs. P. and J. Gordon, contractors for the painting of Maryhill barracks?

The inquiry is still proceeding.

asked the Secretary for War if he will state whether the 11 soldiers who were discharged a few days ago at Colchester on account of bad teeth were discharged from the Army entirely or only discharged from the colours to the first-class Army Reserve?

I am making inquiry.

asked the Secretary for War whether the condition of the three cavalry brigades now on manœuvres is, approximately, first brigade 325 horses short of its peace establishment, second brigade 387 horses short of its peace establishment, and the third brigade 312 horses short of its peace establishment; and if such shortage is on account of the five-year-old horses being left behind?

No figures showing the present state of these brigades tare available at the War Office to enable me to verify the statistics quoted by the hon. and gallant Member. It is probable that any shortage of horses is due to the five-year-old horses being left behind.

asked the Secretary for War whether any Territorial Telegraph companies are to be employed in the Army manœuvres; whether these Territorial soldiers have already had a fortnight's, training; and whether they are being employed in preference to the Special Telegraph Reserve companies of the Post Office Rifles, who have received only one week's training this year?

A cable company was required for Army manœuvres, and men and equipment were accordingly drawn from the cable telegraph companies of the Territorial Force to form a combined unit. There was no question, therefore, of their employment in preference to the Special Telegraph Reserve companies, who are not employed on cable company work. It is regretted that it was not found practicable to train certain of the men of the Post Office Rifles for a full fortnight. There are no statistics available at the War Office to show whether the men of the cable companies have had a full fortnight's training.

asked the Chief Secretary the income of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for each of the past 10 years, giving the sources from which it is derived; the number of schools and teachers employed in them last year; the salaries paid to the teachers; the number of pupils who passed in the various grades last year, and the amount paid in results for those students; what assistance in the way of building, equipment, etc., do the Board give for the purpose of opening new intermediate schools; and what assistance in the way of building or equipment have the Board ever given to existing intermediate schools?

The hon. Member will find the particulars which he requires as to the amount and sources of the income of the Intermediate Education Board, the number of pupils who passed in the various grades and the amounts paid in school grants in the Annual Reports of the Board which have been presented to Parliament. There are no available statistics as to the number or salaries of the teachers employed in the schools during last year. The Board assist intermediate schools as regards building and equipment for the purpose of teaching science. Advances for these purposes have been made during the last seven years, and the amount at present outstanding is £18,830.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Scott's Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, Greenock, Government contractors, are violating the Fair Wage Clause by paying the labourers in their employ 4d. per hour instead of the customary rate in the district of 4½d.; and whether he will take steps to have the Fair Wage Clause complied with?

No complaint has been made to me of the nature indicated in the question, and I am making inquiries of the firm with regard to the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he had any official information to the effect that when the cruiser "Warrior" put into Plymouth last month a portion of her crew were in a state bordering on mutiny, and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me private notice of this question, and also for the opportunity which it affords me of making a most emphatic contradiction of the statement that a portion of the crew of the "Warrior" were in a state bordering upon mutiny last month, and of denying that there were any circumstances on which such a charge could be based.

moved to leave out the words "an estate or" ["purchase of an estate or"].

This matter was raised in Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman has not carried out—I am not suggesting any breach of faith—what he intimated he hoped he would be able to do; hence my Amendment. I should have been glad had I been able to move my next Amendment, which is to leave out the consecutive words "untenanted land" at the same time, but the Chairman in Committee ruled that it was not possible to leave out both simultaneously because that would destroy the subject matter of the Clause. We had two very interesting Debates, because this goes to the whole root of the matter, and at the end of a rather long Debate, and a very valuable one, we withdrew our opposition because the Chief Secretary met us, and, after saying he hoped the Debate would be continued in the spirit in which it had been conducted, promised to try to elucidate this subject of what is meant by "an estate" and by "untenanted land." It was on 26th August and at page 2345 of the OFFICIAL REPORT he said:— After taking legal advice, if it can be shown that it would be possible in this compulsory part of the Bill to have a definition of an estate and also a definition of untenanted land, I shall be willing to propose it. We are now on the Report stage, and the right hon. Gentleman I have no doubt will be able to show that it is impossible to give a definition unless this is an inadvertence. As a matter of fact, I am not saying that is a pledge, binding in any way, but if it was so intended it has not been carried out, and still these words are left at large, and as undefined as ever, and with all their wideness. The words "un-tenanted land" are left undefined as well as "an estate," and I have also an Amendment on the Paper in regard to them. The Chief Secretary will not contradict me when I say in regard to the definition we are as far off from it as ever we were. In dealing with the question of estate, I want to draw the attention of the House to how this Clause stands, because this is the first and only opportunity we have under the guillotine of discussing it. There is a clear distinction between estate or untenanted land, and any court would hold that estate must mean something which is not untenanted land. That is one of the considerations which I think led the Chief Secretary to say that he would at this stage give us a definition of estate if it was possible to do it.

This is hardly the time to raise the question of what "an estate" is. That is surely a matter to be raised on the Definition Clause. This is a recital, "Where the Estates Commissioners have made a proposal for the purchase of an estate or untenanted land," then certain things follow, but the hon. Member cannot avail himself of this opportunity of inserting here a definition of the word "estate"; that must come in its proper place later on. The effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member would be not to apply these proposals as to severance to cases where estates were taken, which is the very opposite probably of what the hon. Member desires.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that it was exactly the parallel Clause on which we got the offer from the right hon. Gentleman, and surely I should be in order in discussing what the proposal is; so that the Chief Secretary could give us an explanation now, and if it was possible, I am quite sure he would put it in the Definition Clause. I bow to your ruling, of course, but it seems to me that the definition of "an estate" is the subject matter of the whole Clause, and the House should have an opportunity of considering what is the subject matter.

The very fact that the hon. Member wishes first of all to leave out "an estate or" and then to leave out the words "or untenanted land" shows that the matter cannot be raised now; because, supposing the Government accept both Amendments of the hon. Member, what is to become of the Clause? This Clause is intended as a concession to the hon. Member, and if he knocks out these two sets of words the whole of the Clause is gone. We must assume that the hon. Member intends something by his Amendment.

I am not quarrelling with your ruling, Sir; but surely we are entitled to discuss this question. It may be that my Amendments are inconsistent, but they are definite. If the right hon. Gentleman says he will drop "untenanted" and leave "estate," I shall be satisfied. I only wish to know; though, of course, I acquiesce in your ruling. Am I not at liberty to know how far the application of this Clause goes, and to show what it does affect under the words "an estate"?

I do not think so. I think this is merely a recital, and this Clause simply means that where these proposals have been made and severance takes place, then certain things are to happen, but this surely cannot be the proper place to raise the question of what is intended by the words "an estate." If the hon. Member thinks that the words "an estate" ought to be properly defined, he ought to put down an Amendment to define them in its proper place in the Definition Clause.

I shall not pursue the matter any further. My excuse for raising it now is, that in Committee it was debated, and we have so very few opportunities under this guillotine Resolution of discussing what we really want to arrive at, but in obedience to your ruling I shall not pursue the matter further.

That also applies to the second Amendment of the hon. Member, and in regard to the next Amendment, I do not think it is relevant to this Clause. I do not see what relevancy it has; nor will it read as it stands.

The object of the next Amendment which stands in my name is to enlarge the scope of the Clause, and the aim I have in view is one which is not opposed by any party in this House, either above or below the Gangway, at the present time. I wish to apply the proposed Clause to any land, "provided that in case it shall have been previously sold under the Land Purchase Acts, the Estates Commissioners shall, on or before the completion of the proposed purchase, redeem the existing annuity." At the present time, when the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners desire to relieve congestion in certain parts of the West of Ireland, or to increase the number of economic holdings in other parts of the country, they are debarred as the law stands from purchasing land which has already been purchased, but if the annuitant himself redeems, then he becomes the owner in future and the Estates Commissioners can purchase under those circumstances. There have been cases in the West of Ireland where a very large landlord purchased considerable quantities of land under the Ashbourne Act and other Acts. The Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board were anxious to acquire this land for the relief of congestion in Galway, and they found themselves unable to do so until the occupier had made application to the Land Commission and ascertained from them how much, by actuarial calculation, of the original land had been paid for and how much the outstanding debt was. He ascertained the amount of the outstanding debt, but had to apply to a bank, not having the ready money himself, for the amount of the outstanding loan, thereby acquiring the fee simple, and then he sold to the Congested Districts Board. The object of this Amendment is to remedy that defect in the existing law and to give the Estates Commissioners a more extended power than they already possess.

No doubt the object of the hon. Member is a very desirable one, but I do not think it can be raised upon this Clause. This Clause deals simply with the question of severance. What the hon. Member has said has really no reference to the question of severance. He must raise it as a separate Clause.

moved, in Sub-section (2) of the proposed new Clause, after the word "may" ["the Judicial Commissioner may "], to insert the words "at the option of the owner."

This Amendment deals with the question of severance, and goes, I think, to the very root of it. The Chief Secretary rather complained last night that he was taken by surprise at adverse criticism of his new Clause, because he said when he undertook to bring it in there had been no mention whatsoever of the damage which might be sustained by severance under the Bill. In column 2337 of the OFFICIAL REPORT I drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact, in the very Debate he was referring to, that as the Bill was drafted It would lead possibly to the danger of severance without compensation. I think the Chief Secretary dealt fairly with the House in saying that he would consider between now and the Report stage whether this can be avoided. This Section does for the first time give powers of severance. Would the right hon. Gentleman take that into consideration when he is carrying out his undertaking? Mr. Birrell: What clause? Mr. Moore: Sub-section (4) of Clause 59. Mr. Birrell: All right. I will consider it. I think it was hardly accurate of him last night to say that the question of loss arising from compulsory severance was not brought to his knowledge. Certainly I had it in my mind.

I thought I got over that difficulty by securing that there should be no severance.

May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should accept all the Amendments moved by the hon. Gentleman, and if they make the Clause worse it is only the landlords who will suffer?

I have too much interest in the Bill.

Does the second Amendment necessarily hang upon the first? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman now arguing the question of compensation or is the second Amendment, "at the option of the owner," a separate Amendment?

They hang together.

Then I will ask the hon. and learned Member out of what fund compensation is to be paid?

Out of the price.

As I understand, the Estates Commissioners are to buy, and they are to give more because of the severance, and they are to recoup themselves by selling back to the tenants. Suppose the tenants do not pay, the Consolidated Fund will have to pay. Is that not so?

The Guarantee Fund.

Then the hon. and learned Member is placing an additional charge on the Guarantee Fund. That can not be done on Report.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, a amended, stand part of the Bill."

Am I right in supposing that "untenanted" refers to the Clause the right hon. Gentleman proposes to move later on in the Paper, where it is defined as land in the occupation of a person holding under a fee farm grant or a lease for lives renewable for ever, and, if so, how will he define land to be untenanted which ex hypothesi will not have a tenant upon it. Take the case of a lease for a year. You might have a lease for 60 years unexpired. I cannot see how leasehold land could be anything else but tenanted land, or how by construction you can extend this Clause, and say untenanted land is tenanted land. It is more than I can understand.

I do not know that this question arises at all on this Clause. The question of the definition of untenanted land is raised by a subsequent clause. I do not think this Clause has any reference whatever to the matter.

The connection of this Clause with untenanted land is this, that when the whole subject was discussed in Committee undoubtedly we understood that it covered not merely the case dealt with in this particular Clause, but also the case of the acquisition by the Estates Commissioners of land in the hands of an ordinary tenant. It was on that aspect of the matter that I raised the question when the Clause was being read a. second time, and the answer of the Attorney-General was that the remaining branch of the undertaking given by the Government was dealt with by the Amendment. But that is not the fact. The undertaking given by the Government was an undertaking to give power to place certain restrictions on the acquisition of land, and the later Clause, instead of placing restrictions, extends the power. I do not discuss whether that extension is reasonable or not; but the point remains that there has been no fulfilment of the pledge given by the Government that they would deal not merely with the case included in this Clause, but with the other cases, namely, the case of an ordinary working farmer in the occupation of land.

I think the hon. Member is really anticipating a new Clause in the name of the Chief Secretary, which raises the very question he is now discussing—what untenanted land is.

I only raise the matter now to make it clear that I did not regard this particular Clause which the Government have put down as a complete fulfilment of the undertaking which they gave.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

moved the following Clause:—

(Amendment and Withdrawal of Proposals of the Congested Districts Board.)

"Where the Congested Districts Board make a proposal for the purchase of an estate or untenanted land the provisions of Part II. of this Act with respect to the Amendment and withdrawal of proposals of the Estates Commissioners shall apply, with the substitution of the Congested Districts Board for the Estates Commissioners."

This new Clause applies to the Congested Districts Board, the Clause we have just added to the Bill relating to the Estates Commissioners.

This emphasises the point about which I asked a question. Does the second next Clause apply both in the case of congested districts and outside congested districts?

Will it not be more convenient to decide that question when we come to the Clause?

I have no hesitation in saying I think it will. As far as I can see these proposals in regard to compulsory purchase are intended by the Act to be exactly the same in the congested districts or outside. There is no distinction. This Clause is introduced entirely in favour of the owner to prevent what we consider would be a hardship to him. A portion of his land is taken, and a very small and bad portion left. There is no reason, so far as. I can see, why he should not get the benefit of this provision.

The feeling of the House seems to be that we should discuss this matter on the Definition Clause. Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way not to move this Clause until after we have disposed of the Definition Clause?

Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

I beg to move the second reading of this Clause. It raises an important matter, upon which I had a friendly discussion with all parts of the House. The Clause relates to the powers of investment to be given to the trustees of the moneys which are paid to the vendors of settled land under the provisions of this Bill for the sale of their land. No more important question could well engage the attention of the House of Commons from a practical point of view. I think there was general agreement that it was most desirable in the interest of landlords and in the interest of the proper working out of the Land Acts that the moneys realised by the sale of their lands should be invested with every precaution for safety, but at the same time in a more modern spirit than that which characterised our old investment clauses in wills and deeds of settlement, or than that which in these matters has animated the Legislature up to the present time. We want to secure that those landlords should be able, for the benefit of themselves and those who come after them, to have a wider range of investments. We all agreed as business Gentlemen — one or two hon. Members sitting opposite gave every assistance in this matter, including the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)— that the range of investments should be widened. Those of us who have had, as I have had, considerable experience in the drawing up of wills and settlements, know how much harm has been done to the interests of families by the old-fashioned and restricted Investment Clause. It was generally agreed that I should do my best, with such assistance as was open to me, to draft an Investment Clause. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London was good enough to offer to place at my disposal the Clause he has inserted in his own testamentary disposition. He fulfilled his promise, and supplied me with a copy of that Clause, and a very good and shrewd Clause it is I was not able to adopt it entirely, because the hon. Baronet in his own study was more able, being a private person, to draw comparisons between the credit of different foreign countries than could be done by the draftsman of a Clause to be inserted in a public Statute. It would be hardly desirable to indicate confidence in one public State rather than another. I pointed that out to the hon. Baronet, and he fully acquiesced in that criticism. Of course, I agree that we must distinctly understand that if this wide range of investments is given, landlords should themselves know that, though they are entitled to benefit by it in so far as we increase the area of choice beyond that which has hitherto been given, it can only be done with the sanction of the Public Trustee. When I say the Public Trustee, I mean the Public Trustee in Ireland, appointed under the Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham). He is a gentleman of great intelligence, and I think by this time of considerable knowledge of investments.

There are one or two things which I want to make perfectly plain in connection with this Clause. One is that Parliament expects the Public Trustee, and I am quite sure he will fulfil the expectation, to exercise his judgment in these matters, of course, in accordance with known principles, and the information which he derives from his advisers on the Stock Exchange. He is to exercise his discretion, but he is absolutely protected by the terms as well of this Bill as of the existing law. He is absolutely protected from any personal liability, provided, of course, that he acts in the exercise of good faith and without any improper motive. If he does that, all goes well, so far as he is concerned. Therefore, the question the House has to consider is whether, having regard to the first class of investments which are in the new Clause, namely, those which enable the moneys, notwithstanding the terms of the trust deed itself for the settlement of the land to be with the sanction of the Public Trustee invested "in any of the public stocks or funds or Government securities of any Foreign Government or State." Of course that is a wide power, and if for one moment it was supposed that that would authorise or lead to the investment of trust moneys in some public stocks or in the funds of some foreign Governments, of course it would be out of all question, and nobody could make such a suggestion to the House of Commons. I think we may rely upon the statutory obligation as to the sanction of the Public Trustee, and I need scarcely say that some of the public stocks and funds of foreign Governments and States axe among the most desirable investments that anybody can possibly make. They are as safe as anything in human circumstances can be. I do not deny that they require a certain amount of watching. A certain amount of intelligence is required if you have any investments, and it is impossible to name any investments which any man can make once and for all, and leave the matter as one which is finally settled, and about which he need have no concern. But you could not allow people to invest money on mortgage of real estate without any word said or anything done in public. Anybody who knows anything about mortgage securities knows that there are no securities which occasion more anxiety to the mortgagee than investments on real estate, owing to the great and increasing changes which take place, particularly nowadays, in the value of land on account of circumstances beyond the control.

Motor cars have materially destroyed the value of many admirable properties which thirty years ago would have been called desirable investments for trustees, but which are now greatly reduced in value. Although I agree that prudent mortgagees only advance at most two-thirds of the value, leaving a margin, that margin diminishes with so much rapidity that anybody who knows anything about these matters knows that mortgage securities are anxious securities, and require just as much watching and care, as much detailed knowledge, and perpetual and renewed examination as can possibly be required in the case of any public stocks and funds. It is, therefore, eminently desirable to allow these moneys to be invested in the manner proposed. The second point is that the trustees of the settlement may, with the sanction of the Public Trustee, invest the purchase money "in the mortgages, bonds, deben- tures, or debenture stock of any railway in the United States of America, Mexico, the Argentine Republic, or Canada, which has, during each of the five years last past before the date of investment, paid a dividend on its preference stock (if any) or its ordinary stock."

4.0 P.M.

The only criticism I have met with in the City on that point is—and it is one deserving of consideration —that we should either, here or elsewhere, define what is meant by "debenture," because, in the United States of America I am informed that debenture is often applied to what in England we would call an I O U. It is not in that country a mortgage which will hypothecate to meet its charges the whole undertaking of the company, and it might be necessary to define here "debenture" in the English sense of the word as meaning a mortgage. Subject to that, I propose to make this alteration here, giving people who are fortunate enough to have money to invest a wider range. There are no better, safer and more profitable investments within limits than railways in the countries to which I have referred, notably in Canada, and also in the United States of America. Everybody believes that the railways of those two great countries are among the very best almost that can be got in the world in the shape of an investment, and it would be a great pity if we were deliberately to exclude the possibility of investment with the sanction of the Public Trustee in such undertakings as those. It really would be to rule out the capacity of Irish landlords to go into the market and make the very best investment which the most prudent stockbrokers and the most prudent advisers would recommend them to make. Those are the two investments which require the sanction of the Public Trustee.

As regards those which do not require such sanction. I do not think there is much need to trouble about them, because they are practically the securities which are allowed by law as investments for trustees, or by my old friend, the Court of Chancery, in its dealings with the property under its power belonging to the trust estates of infants and the like. The words have been very carefully considered, and I have had the advantage of the hon. Baronet's advice on the matter. I think they are words which the House might safely pass. They are, "in the mortgages, bonds, debentures, or debenture stock of any railway company in the United Kingdom incorporated by special Act of Parlia- ment which has, during each of the five years last past before the date of investment, paid a dividend on its preference stock (if any) or its ordinary stock, or in the preference stock of any such railway company which has, during a like period paid a dividend on its ordinary stock."

The preference stock is no doubt the kind of stock which trustees alone, with or without the sanction, should be allowed to invest in. I do not think trustees should be allowed to invest in the ordinary stock of any railway whatever. Circumstances are so peculiar and conditions vary so much that I think we are doing no injustice to the ordinary stock of any railway if we rule it out for the purposes of this Clause. Then we have "the stocks and shares of any tramway or light railway, dividends upon which are guaranteed under Tramways (Ireland) Acts, 1860 to 1900"; and finally we have:

"The stock, mortgages, bonds, debentures, or debenture stock issued or to be issued by the council of any county or urban district in the United Kingdom under the authority of any Act or Provisional Order; and may from time to time, subject to the like conditions, vary any such investment."

I think that is the best I can do with such assistance as I could get, and I honestly believe, assuming that you can rely not only on the present occupier of the office of Public Trustee, but upon all people who succeed him, we can no doubt get a wise class of investment, in this wide limit, with a wise control. The other matters are, first:

"The Public Trustee, in any case in which his sanction is required for an investment under this Section, shall, before sanctioning the investment, satisfy himself that there is a reasonable probability that the investment will, if realised on the death of the tenant for life or the termination of the trust, produce an amount not less than the sum invested; and the Public Trustee shall not incur any liability on account of any sanction given or withheld by him in good faith."

We might argue until doomsday as to what is the precise effect to be given to "reasonable probability" in this case. I need not go into that. We must have something of the kind. We must direct the Public Trustee's mind to something, and that assumes that there must be a reasonable probability that the investment he is now making or sanctioning is one which after the lapse of several years, or at the falling in of the life estate, is likely to be found realisable at the value which he puts on it. Of course, fluctuations may occur. They may go up or down. What he has got to exercise his mind upon is that there is a reasonable probability. And after all, that is a problem which is dealt with every day by stockbrokers or others investing the money of their clients. But it is also made perfectly plain, assuming his opinions to be what they are, that he himself does not incur any liability, even though that reasonable probability is not justified and some loss is incurred. The next provisos are:

"The powers of investment conferred upon trustees by this Section shall be in addition to any powers of investment conferred on trustees by Act of Parliament, and such last-mentioned powers may be exercised notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the settlement. A trustee shall not incur any liability by reason of any investment made by him in exercise of the powers conferred by this Section. Sub-sections (1), (2), and (3) of Section fifty-one of the Act of 1903 shall cease to have effect."

The hon. Baronet made a criticism which was shrewd and sensible enough. He thought that the distinction between those investments which might be made with the sanction of the Public Trustee and those which do not require that sanction would lead the Public Trustee to take an altogether quiescent attitude in the matter, and that he would say, "Do not come bothering me to exercise my mind upon the question of the safety or reasonable probability of investment in Danish or Russian securities. You have got the whole range of ordinary trustee investments. Why not be content with those? Go away in peace, and leave me in receipt of my salary." There is sense in that. At the same time I do not think that is the way in which a Public Trustee who has these duties imposed upon him by Parliament would be likely to work. It may make him a little cautious. Well, he ought to be cautious, because the wide powers conferred upon him by the first part of the Clause require him to be cautious, and we do not want him to be otherwise. But I do not think he would say " nolo episcopari, " or whatever is the equivalent phrase. I think he would, having nothing else to do, accept and discharge the duties imposed on him in respect of the investments, although, I admit, there is some force in the view of the hon. Baronet. But just consider what the result of adopting that other view would be. It would be that no investment of any sort could be made without the sanction. That would add enormously to the burden of his work, because I do not doubt that there is a great number of quiet, peaceful people who are well content—and I do not blame them—with the ordinary range of trust security, and will not trouble the Public Trustee at all. Yet, for every investment of the most ordinary workaday description, you would have to go then for his sanction. So I think, on the whole, the reasons are against the suggestion, in itself an admirable one, made by the hon. Baronet. I think, therefore, this Clause is one which I can honestly recommend to the House as one which is not only safe and prudent, but one which, if passed, after consideration, may well deserve the thanks bestowed on us by landlords and others who very often find themselves in reduced circumstances owing to the sale of their estate, and who naturally desire, having turned their mud into money, to enjoy the advantages of the fluid securities which are open to people who have money to invest. I, therefore, feeling that in this respect I have no party feeling in the matter at all, invite the House to the consideration of this Clause. But I think subject possibly to further advice upon the definition of debentures in the United States of America, which can be done either here or elsewhere, the House will not do wrong if it gives the Clause a second reading.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that he does not see his way to accept my suggestion that the sanction of the Public Trustee should apply to both descriptions of stock. I did attach considerable importance to that for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has given. I thought it might be possible—in fact, very likely—that the Public Trustee, or some of them—because we do not know who he is going to be: he may be a very excellent man now, but we do not know who he will be later on—might say, "You have got powers to invest in certain things. I do not see why I should be troubled to take any responsibility. Why do you not invest your money in the way you can without coming to me?" The right hon. Gentleman says that if his sanction were required for every investment the result would be to inflict a great deal of work upon him, which work would be unnecessary. Provided the right hon. Gentleman thinks my fear is unfounded, and that the Public Trustee will not take that view, I shall be inclined to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. But I still have some doubt as to whether or not it is possible you might have a Public Trustee who would take that view to save himself trouble, and would say, "I really do not know why I should go into this when you have these other classes of investment which would impose no liability upon me." One hon. Gentleman has said that in paragraph (ii) of Subsection ( a ), the words "debenture or debenture stock" might be meant to mean I O U in the case of a railway company in America, Mexico, or other places. That is quite true as regards Mexico or America, and if the investment were limited to those countries then I think that "debentures or debenture stock" should not be used, and the words should be "mortgages or mortgage bonds" of any railway, because what the right hon. Gentleman says is absolutely correct. In America and Mexico what corresponds to our debenture are really mortgages on the property, and if the interest is not forthcoming the holder can step in and seize the property, which cannot be done in England. But the reason I do not object to those words being put in is on account of the Argentine Republic and Canada, especially Canada, because in Canada, and also in the Argentine Republic, there are debentures in the same way as they exist in England. I do not think it necessary to give instances, but there are instances where that occurs. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might consent to an Amendment something in this form: "In the mortgages or mortgage bonds of any railway in the United States of America or Mexico, and in the mortgage bonds, debentures or debenture stocks of any railway in the Argentine Republic or Canada." I think that would meet the point. It might be that that would have to be revised later on, and that could be done in another place. But I believe that if the words are altered as I suggest it would meet the point of excluding debentures, which I quite agree ought to be excluded in the United States and in Mexico, because it might be held that they might be simply an I O U. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is quite wise not to put in any limit of population. Paragraph (iii.) says: "In the stock, mortgages, bonds, debentures, or debenture stock issued, or to be issued, by the council of any county or urban district in the United Kingdom under the authority of any Act or Provisional Order." Under the Trustee Act, at it at present exists, there is a limit of population. That is to say, you cannot invest in the funds of any county council or urban district council provided the population does not consist of 50,000 or over. That is the limitation which is put into the Trustee Act. I do not quite know whether the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to give more elasticity, and to include certain county councils, urban district councils, and municipalities which are not included in the Trustee Act, or whether it is to take away all restriction. I do not think all restriction ought to be taken away, because in the case of some small district councils or county councils or urban councils, it might be that they would borrow a small sum of money, and it would really hardly be advisable to invest in such securities. I do not know whether this or a similar limit ought to be imposed, but I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might put in the words "where the population exceeds 30,000," or something of that sort. Although there ought to be some limit, I do not propose to move an Amendment, and I merely make the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman.

The reason why I did not put a limit of population was that I did not want more than I could help to strike any distinction between the securities which are mentioned in the Act of 1903. In the Act of 1903 a population limit was not included. In the Act of 1903 Parliament did not follow the Trustee Act of 1893, which imposed the limitation of a population of 50,000. I, therefore, thought it advisable, and still think it advisable, not to strike any distinction between the provisions already made under the Act of 1903 and subsequently. With regard to Irish investments, no doubt it does affect them very much owing to the fact that the number of large towns in Ireland is very small. I think, however, the kind of securities which the Irish landlords and their friends would be most alive to would be securities within their own jurisdiction, and I do not think there would be any likelihood of investments or mortgages secured by the rates of Irish towns or Irish local authorities, even although the limit of population imposed by the Trustee Act had not been reached. Therefore, I followed the provisions of the Act of 1903. and I think I was right in doing so. I have the list of chief investments made by the Public Trustee, and I am perfectly certain that nobody can find any fault with it either in respect of safety, prudence, or the wisdom exercised in the choice of securities. I go a step further in this Clause, and extend the area of choice, feeling confident that the same prudence and wisdom will be exercised as before.

I echo the regret expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), that the Chief Secretary has maintained a distinction between the stock in which the trustee may invest and the stock in which they may only invest with the consent of the Public Trustee. I think I am stating the fact accurately when I say that at the end of our discussion in Committee the general opinion, in which I think the Secretary at that time concurred, was that there should be no distinction, that we should have as much latitude of investment as possible, and that in each case the sanction of the Public Trustee should be given when it possibly could be given. I am afraid if you draw that distinction it will be likely to create a misapprehension as to the character of particular stocks. It is very hard to know what impression an Act of Parliament will create. People on the whole are rather nervous and conservative in matters of investment, and if in an Act of Parliament it is provided that no investment can take place unless you get the consent of the Public Trustee, then it may be that a certain amount of discredit will be thrown on some investments. No doubt the Chief Secretary has thought the matter over, and it is one which can be put right. We are making experiments in legislation of this kind, and I think that the Chef Secretary may be emboldened by the great confidence which is felt in the Public Trustee in England. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether the Public Trustee under the Land Act in Ireland might not act generally as Public Trustee in Ireland. I throw that out as a suggestion germane to this Clause, and I think it is of vast importance. It would bring him into contact with a larger number of persons, and would tend to ensure profit both to the landlord and tenant, because investments could be so made that those who sell would not suffer any diminution of income. Larger profits to the seller would mean larger profits to the buyer, because the amount the tenant has to pay is determined more by what the income of the landlord is from investment after selling, and if the landlord can get a better income for a certain sum the tenant's profit will be at least as much as the vendor's. One question I should like to ask, and that is whether the Government has any particular intention in omitting Sub-section (2) of Clause 51 of the Act of 1903? That provision deals with investments authorised by the rule-making authority under Section 61 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has repealed that of set purpose, or whether it is of no great value. But Subjection (2) says: "That authority shall cause to be published from time to time in the 'Dublin Gazette' a list of such investments as may for the time being be authorised by them, for the investment of purchase money under this Section." If there is no value in those words by all means let us have them out, but I only wish at this stage to know why the Government have omitted them. I am glad that the Government have brought in the Clause, and I hope that all words that can be interpreted in the courts of law adversely to the general intention of the House will be kept out. I did my best to make my meaning clear in the Act of 1903, and the Chief Secretary has no doubt done his best, and I hope he will be more fortunate than I was.

This proposed extension of the classes of investment under the Act of 1903 I must say gives one curiously to think. I remember when Lord Castletown of Upper Ossory moved the Clause, now in the Act of 1903, extending the powers of investment, another Noble Lord, a very prudent and conservative statesman, at once got the Clause negatived in the House of Lords. Then there were some other arrangements which took place beyond these walls, with the result that an amended Clause was, with great hesitation, swallowed by the Lords and the Conservative party. The right hon. Gentleman has now found it necessary to go a great deal further, find give the landlord powers of investment which he never enjoyed before. Of course the reason is plain. He wants to give the landlords a looser rein in the hope of their getting better interest on their purchase money. For my own part, as the money is not mine, I have no objection to the landlords going to Buenos Ayres or the North Pole to invest, except so far as it affects Ireland. It is very curious to see the way in which the Public Trustee acts. The Trinity College Commission sat, and after the lapse of two years there was £10,000 to play with. Not a cent of it was invested in Ireland; but whatever you may say of them, the authorities of Trinity College are Irishmen living in their own country, and here is how they invested their own money. I quote from page 56 of the Report:— The college authorities, whatever their technical position may be, consider themselves as trustees in the ordinary sense, and bound by the same responsibilities, and liable to perform their important duties in the same manner. With the exception of the investment of £800 in Dublin and Kingstown Railway stock, made under special circumstances, they have never gone outside ordinary trust investments. They have no stock outside the United Kingdom except some Indian stock bequeathed to them in that form for a special purpose. Their securities are chiefly bank stocks, Great Western debentures, Great Southern debentures or Great Northern debentures, all Irish. The Rev. Thos. Grey said 'if the members of the Board mentioned a security that was not solid gold it would not be listened to.' When asked whether they might not consider whether they could not get a good security in the Colonies and a better return, he answered, 'They are very far away, and we do not know anything about them until they break.' That is the opinion formed by a number of gentleman, who are at all events native Irishmen, dealing with the matter from the point of view of securities. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, except so far as it bears on Irish securities, proposes to give power to invest in any public stocks or funds, or Government securities of any foreign Government or States, and you will have what used to be headed, in times long ago, "English Charities Abroad," because nearly all of them defaulted. Now for the first time the proposal is to allow all these investments to be made in these foreign lands, and of money coming out of Ireland, so that just as most of the landlords were absentees in the past, so their moneys will be absentees in the future. I must say it is not for me to criticise the action of one Government, because, as I say, one money is not mine, but I cannot help feeling that it is a pity that the very wide Clauses that were in the Act of 1903 are being extended. Yesterday a great deal of attention was devoted to the question of the salary of two gentlemen connected with the poorest districts in Ireland. I would like to ask what is the salary of the Public Trustee who will have in the future to deal with investments amounting to £150,000,000 of money? His salary is £600 per year, and hp bas no pension. He will have to survey the globe from China to Peru. He will have to take in Cook and Peary, and now the South Pole is also to be placed at his disposal, and he does all that without a pension, for £600 a year. I may be wrong in the amount, but, at any rate, it is not within the region of £2,000. It appears to me that this Clause will throw a very large additional burden upon him. I do not know him, except that he was examined at the Trinity College Commission. For my part I think it is for those interested in Irish investments to say a word in some slight deprecation of the very large extended powers which this Section gives. Of course, we know the reason. The reason simply is this, that the State will not give as good terms to the landlords or to the tenants as they got under the Act of 1903, and, accordingly, the landlords are told to go to Jericho with their investments.

This is an extraordinarily valuable Clause, which will be equally acceptable to representatives of landlords and representatives of tenants, and which undoubtedly does a very great deal to facilitate land purchase in Ireland. Of course, anybody who has had any practical acquaintance with these transactions knows that the rate of interest which the landlords can get on their investments is the dominating consideration in fixing the price. This fact is well known to everybody. In the discussions which have taken place in Ireland and in this House during recent years on sales of land there has been an enormous amount of controversy as to the possible rate of interest which the landlords could hope to invest their money for under the present law controlling trustees. The general contention on the part of the landlords was that they could only get from 3¼ to 3½ per cent. On that basis they sought to recover, as they urged they were entitled to do, their full net income by investment of the trustee. It is manifest if you want to recover your full net income by investment by the trustee at 3¼ or 3½ per cent. you will have to get a very high price. I am satisfied under the Clause now proposed by the Chief Secretary, and for which I most heartily thank him, it will be quite possible for the landlords of Ireland to invest their money at from £3 17s. per cent. to £4 per cent., or £4 1s. or £4 2s. per cent. Anyone can satisfy themselves of that by looking at the price, for instance, of First Canadians, American bonds, and railways in the Argentine. Those are securities which, although there is nothing absolutely secure in this world, are infinitely better than Irish land. Therefore common sense shows that there is no injury to the remainder man by transferring the price received from Irish land into those securities.

I need not enlarge on the point as to the enormous facilities which will be given to the conduct of future sales if the landlord can satisfy himself, or his trustees can satisfy themselves, that he is able with perfect safety — I mean perfect safety without risk to the trustees — to obtain anywhere from £3 17s. to over £4 per cent. in some cases. It will enable many landlords to accept a lower price for their estates. I say, therefore, that this Clause, so far from being what we have just heard it described to be, is a Clause of enormous value, and, as I said, with the peculiar unique value that it is equally of value, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, to the seller and to the buyer. We heard a high authority quoted just now as to the proprietary value of such an investment—Dr. Gray, of Trinity College, an ancient professor, who I do not think is a very valuable authority on investments. All I can say is that if we are to judge the value of his opinion on investments from the quotation read by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, in which he spoke of Colonial investments and of their rotten character, and explained that he knew nothing whatever about Colonial investments until he heard of their bankruptcy, I would not trust any money of mine to him. They are quite as good a security as English Consols. This Clause opens up an enormous field of investment to the Irish landlords, which, in my deliberate judgment, will enable them to get 4 per cent. on their purchase money in the future. And, therefore, I say, speaking on behalf of the tenants and purchasers, I most heartily congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having introduced this Clause.

I quite agree with the last speaker that this is a very valuable Clause, and although I am one of those who think that the Chief Secretary has done a good deal in this Bill to discourage land purchase, yet I think that this will probably help in the way that the hon. Member has said in assisting the carrying out of land purchase. I do not think it is at all unreasonable. I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) in thinking that it would in any way assist the problem in Ireland to restrict the investment of money to Irish securities. In the first place, it is not done at present, and no one has suggested that it should be. In the next place, this proposed Clause will give the same class of security in Ireland just the same chance as it will have in other places. Therefore my position is that I am very glad that the Chief Secretary has found himself able to provide a wider and more extensive, and certainly an investment, Clause which is more in accordance with modern ideas. I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to two or three matters which he might perhaps deem of some importance. In the first place, I cannot agree with the idea that you are going to do any mischief by defining the Clause of security, namely, one class without the sanction of the Public Trustee and the other to require his sanction. If the Public Trustee wanted to neglect his duty he could at the present moment say, "I am not going to interfere; I think you ought to invest in the investments into which you have power to put your money under the general law of the land." I do not think that he will take, or that he has taken, that view of his duty. Therefore it makes very little difference to reserve certain classes of security. When you come to examine them you find that a good many of them are of the class of securities which in wills and settlements are provided as good investment classes, and which are also recognised by the Court of Chancery. There was another objection made to the provision by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dover. I cannot quite accept that either, because I do not think that this division will lead to the supposition that one class of these securities is very highly speculative and the other not. In point of fact, amongst the securities on which the Trustee has to give his opinion are included securities of a very highly speculative character, and it is for that very reason that the opinion of the Public Trustee is necessary, so that he may be able without invidious distinctions to advise as to certain classes of security. We all know that there are plenty of foreign securities which are perfectly good, and that there are others in which no Member of this House who had any money to invest would like to invest that money. Therefore, without setting it forth on the Act of Parliament, this will leave the Public Trustee, who will know the class of foreign securities, to advise in which to invest.

Then, as to the part dealing with mortgage bonds and debenture stock. May I suggest, and I do so with great deference, because the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is so high an authority on these matters that a suggestion coming from him deserves the greatest possible consideration, but I would suggest that after the word "Canada" the Chief Secretary should insert the words "which are charged upon the property and undertaking of such railway." It could not do any harm to insert those words, and, I think, if they were inserted it would make the Clause perfectly safe and perfectly secure. Now, as to Part III., I am quite in favour. Of course, the law of the land has shown us that these securities within certain limits are right and proper under any circumstances. What you want is to have a reasonable certainty that when the money is wanted, and when the fund has to be raised for its ultimate distribution, that you will have something like the same amount of money. It is well known to those who keep in touch with these matters that there are securities of this kind which are perfectly good, which yield an income which is perfectly safe, but if you were to put any considerable number of them upon the market you will find they cannot be sold, or only sold at a very much less price than what they are really worth. In this matter you are dealing with very large sums which may be put on the market at once.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the suggestion that he should take that class of securities and put it into the class as to which the Public Trustee is to be consulted? Then, in the same way as he would deal with foreign bonds, he would be able to pick out what, having regard to the size of the district, the population, the amount of the loan, and his knowledge of the ordinary transactions of the Stock Exchange, might be a proper and suitable investment, and one which, when it was necessary to realise, would have the prospect of a reasonably ready market. Such a change would not in any way unduly fetter investments, but it would be a considerable advantage to trustees.

I had some suspicions about this Clause, and they were largely confirmed by the warm approval bestowed upon it by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I invariably find that when he blesses a Clause in any Land Bill it is because the Clause will afford another means either of blocking land purchase or of oppressing the hon. Member's political opponents. I think the hon. Member let the cat out of the bag when he said that the great advantage of this Clause was—to put it into his own words, but which mean the same thing —that landlords could be forced to take lower prices. He used the paraphrase that landlords will be able to take lower prices, but we know exactly what that; means. It means that tenants will be told, with the approval of the hon. Member for East Mayo, "Oh, going to the Public Trustee is only a formality, and as the landlords can invest their money in 5 per cent. bonds of the Turkish Government, do not you agree to anything under which they will get a higher price than will enable them to get the income desired at that rate." If the Clause is intended as another means whereby landlords are to be forced to take a lower price than tenants are willing to give under existing conditions by voluntary agreement, I can quite understand why it is welcomed by the hon. Member for East Mayo, and also why any thinking landlord will object to it.

They are all in favour of it.

I agree very much with what fell from the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy), though I think he was in one respect under a misapprehension. I should be entirely with him if this was the only investing code that we were to have, because undoubtedly in the first division of securities Ireland is altogether excluded. But this is only in addition to the existing powers, under which the whole of the money can be invested in Ireland. I am altogether against this exportation of capital abroad, which the Government apparently do everything to encourage. I think that capital should be invested at home as far as possible, especially when it is capital derived from the sale of land at home, which the Chief Secretary so contemptuously refers to as "mud." It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for East Mayo that the object of this Clause is to give a worse security because it carries a higher price, and therefore there is to be a smaller amount paid for the estate and a smaller amount by the Treasury.

I never said anything of the sort. I consider that the bonds of the Union Pacific are a far better security than many of the trustee securities in Ireland.

I do not suppose the hon. Member will deny that, as a rule, the higher the rate of interest the less good is the security, and this Clause is to bring about a higher rate of interest. The Chief Secretary admitted that when he said that the whole object of landlords who suffered a reduction on sale was to secure for themselves a higher income, and that this Clause was to enable them to get it. If you get a higher income by putting your capital into a lower security, because that is what it comes to—