asked the Postmaster-General the cost for carrying mails between Lairg and Tongue formerly and the cost under the new arrangements; the cost now between Thurso and Skerray and the cost formerly; and how many persons tendered for carrying the mails on the Thurso route, their names, and the amounts of the tenders?

I am communicating with the hon. Member on the subject, and I cannot now say more than that the total cost of the present services to Tongue and Skerray is less than the expense which would have been incurred in continuing the former arrangements. It would be contrary to practice to furnish the prices quoted by tenderers for Post Office contracts.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury the present amount of the personal estate and the present estimated value of the real estate of the late Mrs. Blake, née Ellen Sheridan?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was made on 30th ult.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reply he refers to does not contain the information asked?

I have given as far as I can the information the hon. Member requires, and I am sending him references of all previous questions.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board will undertake the provision of a pier or slip at Rineen, in Ballinskelligs Bay, with a view to developing the fishing industry in that district?

Having regard to the work at present in progress on the western shore of Ballinskelligs Bay, the cost of which will, it is expected, exceed £1,100, the Congested Districts Board are not at present in a position to consider plans for the improvement of the landing accommodation at Rineen.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in view of the fact that the Rules and Regulations of the Commissioners of National Education for 1914–15 embody none of the improvements recommended in the Report of the Viceregal Committee on Primary Education, whether any amending rules will be issued to managers and teachers simultaneously, and how soon; what provision is to be made for the more rapid promotion of deserving teachers; by how many years' successful teaching can a teacher obtain the highest-grade salary; from what date will the increments begin; will they be annual; will the Commissioners recognise monitors in schools with an average daily attendance of forty pupils; what are the maximum and minimum ages for monitors; what gratuity, if any, is to be paid to a teacher for training a monitor; and when will the fees for teaching Irish be paid to the teachers?

The Commissioners of National Education have not completed their consideration of the Viceregal Committee's Report, and consequently it would be premature to make any statement in regard to their future action in connection with their recommendations. The Commissioners will recognise monitors in schools with a daily attendance of forty pupils. The maximum age for boy and girl monitors is seventeen years and the minimum for boys fourteen years and girls fifteen years. No gratuity is paid to a teacher for training a monitor. Fees for teaching Irish are being paid at present.

asked the Chief Secretary if he is now in a position to say how many of the grazier tenants on Lady Chapman's estate, Westmeath, are held by the Estates Commissioners competent to buy, under the Land Purchase Acts, the nonresidential farms on which they are restricted from building and tilling, and the number of acres in each case; how many acres remain for distribution among congested and landless people; whether all the residential tenants have yet signed purchase agreements; in what way, if at all, the tenants have been consulted regarding the disposal of the estate; and by what date the Commissioners expect to be able to deal with the estate?

All the tenants on this estate who hold under yearly tenancies but restricted to pasturage come within the classes of persons who can buy their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts. The acreage comprised in these tenancies is some 990 acres. The area of untenanted land offered by the vendor to the Commissioners is 600 acres, but, at the present stage of the negotiations, the Estates Commissioners are not prepared to make any statement as to the area of land which may eventually be available for distribution. Undertakings to purchase have not yet been lodged with the Commissioners. The estate has not yet been acquired by the Commissioners and they have not made any arrangements for its disposal. They cannot at present say when it may be vested in them.

asked whether the Estates Commissioners are about to purchase the lands of Lispopple and Dyrra, the property of the late Hugh P. Wilson, near Coole, Westmeath; if so, what the area is; whether it will be distributed among suitable landless people and occupants of uneconomic holdings in the vicinity; and when the distribution is likely to be carried out?

The Estates Commissioners are unable from the particulars furnished to identify the property referred to as being the subject of proceedings for sale before them under the Irish Land Acts.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that, of the 6,000 subscribers to the Irish Constabulary Force Fund, only 700, being less than one-eighth, are still serving in the force; whether he is aware that the reports and statements of account of the fund issued to police stations in the last two years have not been sent to the non-serving subscribers nor to their associations; and whether he will have this omission immediately rectified and the last two years' accounts of the fund sent to all subscribers thereto?

The present number of subscribers to this fund serving and on pension is generally as stated in the question. The annual statement of the benefit branch of the fund, now published, is only circulated among members of the force, one copy being sent to every station, to be retained there for general information. I have now given directions that in future arrangements are to be made by which any subscriber desirous of obtaining a copy will be in a position to do so by applying direct to the Inspector-General at the Constabulary Office, Dublin Castle.

asked the Chief Secretary if he will grant a Return, by counties, of which notice appears on the Order Paper, of all lands acquired for the purposes of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, under the powers conferred by that Act and extended by Section 67 of the Irish Land Act, 1909; and if he will explain why all bonâ fide evicted tenants and representatives of such have not yet been provided for under those statutory powers?

I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by publishing such a Return, and I cannot therefore consent to its being granted. With the hon. Member's permission, I will publish with to-night's Votes a statement with regard to the reinstatement of evicted tenants.

asked the Prime Minister whether the tribunal of inquiry into the Income Tax Acts will be a Royal Commission?

The Government have not yet come to a definite decision on the matter; but, as at present advised, I hardly think a Royal Commission would be the most suitable form of inquiry.

asked the Prime Minister whether Cabinet changes are impending; and, if so, whether their nature can be announced?

My Noble Friend, Lord Morley of Blackburn, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea have tendered their resignations, which, with great reluctance, I have felt compelled to accept. My Noble Friend, Lord Beauchamp, has accepted the office of Lord President of the Council, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury the Presidency of the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend the Member for the Elland Division has also tendered his resignation, which I have accepted with great regret.

asked the Prime Minister on what day he expects to bring the present Session to a close?

I fear I cannot yet make a statement on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for the addition of a typical representative of the ordinary private trader to the Army Canteens Committee?

As I stated some time ago, this is being done.

May I ask the gentleman's name?

It has already been published.

asked the Postmaster-General the net profit resulting from the working of the telephone system by the State as compared with the net profit made by the National Telephone Company?

The return of the working of the State telephone system in the year 1912–13 (v. H. of C. Paper No. 94) was 4.85 per cent., namely, 3.38 per cent. interest on capital and 1.47 per cent. net contribution to the Exchequer. The dividend of the National Telephone Company was between 5 and 6 per cent.; in the last five years of their operations the average return on their capital was 5.13 per cent., or about a ¼ per cent. higher than that of the Post Office. This comparison does not take into account on one side the reduced charges to the State telephone undertaking in respect of royalties, Income Tax, and certain wayleaves, and on the other side the vastly increased charges for pay and pensions which are imposed by the State on the undertaking.

I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the harrowing scenes which are taking place at Boulogne and Ostend, he would be good enough to look into the matter and see if additional boat accommodation can be provided for British residents anxious to get home'

I will certainly look into the matter.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General a question of which I have given private notice, namely, whether a postal service for letters and newspapers is being maintained to and from Austria, Italy, Spain, North China, and South China, and in the latter two cases what route should be indicated on the address?

Any necessary announcements of these services will be issued by the Post Office in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether farm horses now in use in harvesting cereal crops in England and Wales will be exempted from being impressed for Army requirements?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of; the national necessity that crops should be harvested at present, he will take steps that, in requisitioning horses, farmers' horses will as much as possible be exempted?

It has never been contemplated that farm horses shall be impressed except to a very slight extent, and orders have been issued that they are to be exempted as much as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a question of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether the Treaty of 1839, which deals with the neutrality of Belgium, has been presented to Parliament, and, if so, when?

The Treaty and the Annex thereto were laid before Parliament on the 4th August, 1870, Paper Number 278. I am having a translation of the Articles, which deal with the neutrality of Belgium, printed with to-night's Votes. The House will remember, perhaps, that my hon. Friend asked that the Treaty should be printed with the White Paper containing the diplomatic history of the Crisis, which is to be laid as soon as possible. But I was unwilling to delay that Paper, and I hope the House will accept this suggested course, so that the Paper may be published to-night.— [See to-day's Written Answers.]

I beg to ask the representative of the Admiralty a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether British vessels are, to the knowledge of the Admiralty, at the present moment engaged in fishing outside territorial waters; whether it is proposed that His Majesty's ships should afford them protection; and whether he intends to issue any advice as to the future operations of fishermen on the high seas?

No special measures have been taken for protection of fishing fleets outside territorial waters, other than advising them, so far as practicable, of dangerous areas. The fishing fleets have therefore been advised to withdraw from the North Sea for the present. The Admiralty is in close touch with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question, of which I have just given him private notice, namely: If he is aware that the present price of meat, and anxiety as to the prospective cost of feeding-stuffs, are inducing some of the smaller stock-owners to slaughter their cows, ewes, and sows; and whether, in view of the importance to the nation under existing circumstances and in view of possible future requirements of maintaining the present head of breeding stock throughout the country, the Government will make forthwith an earnest appeal to all farmers and other stock-owners to refrain from the slaughter of such stock, at the same time reassuring them as to the probable maintenance of an adequate supply of feeding-stuffs at moderate prices?

Notice of the question which the hon. Gentleman has just put to me I received only a few minutes ago, but I can inform the House that this, amongst other matters affecting food supplies and the supplies of raw materials, has had the continuous attention of the Government, and that we have now quite sufficient information to allay any alarm that may exist, whether amongst farmers or others, and we are taking such steps as we can to inform the farming community that there is no necessity whatever, either at present or prospectively, for the slaughter of their young stock for financial or other reasons.

On behalf of the Prime Minister I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to procedure in Prize Courts."

This Bill is purely a departmental and uncontroversial Bill. It arises in this way: The rules of procedure in prize proceedings are out of date. Last year a Departmental Committee was appointed in order to revise these rules. That Committee was presided over by the very well-known Admiralty authority, Mr. Butler Aspinall. In accordance with the recommendations of that Committee the new scheme of rules of procedure was drawn up, and the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce enables these rules to be brought into force. The Bill by accident was circulated with the Parliamentary Papers this morning as though it had already been ordered to be printed. The Bill which I now introduce is substantially in the same form, with a provision added merely in order to provide for the application of these new rules to the rules already in force. I have just to add this in order that the House may be under no misapprehension: What we are now proposing does not in the least affect the decision which was announced by my right hon. Friend the First Lord in his speech on the Navy Estimates. He then said:—

"That the Board of Admiralty had decided to recommend to the Government the abolition of prize money."

The Government have accepted that recommendation and propose to abide by it, so that it is not proposed to continue the system by which selected individuals in the Naval Service of the Crown are privately enriched in the discharge of the public duties that they perform. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, that decision does not affect another matter. The question of the issue of some Grant or bounty to sailors during the course of the war is a question which is under consideration, and it is safeguarded by the decision which I have announced.

I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to enable His Majesty in time of war or imminent national danger or great emergency by Order in Council to impose restrictions on Aliens, and make such provisions as may be necessary or expedient for carrying such restrictions into effect."

One of the main objects of the Bill is to remove of restrain the movements of undesirable aliens, especially with a view to the removal or detention of spies. Information in the possession of the Government proves that cases of espionage have been frequent in recent years, and many spies have been caught and dealt with by the police. Within the last twenty-four hours no fewer than twenty-one spies, or suspected spies, have been arrested in various places all over the country, chiefly in important military or naval centres, some of them long known to the authorities to be spies. The arrangements contemplated by the Order have been designed with a view to cause as little inconvenience as possible to alien friends, while leaving effective control over dangerous enemy aliens.

May I ask if the terms of the operative Clause can be read from the Chair?

It is as follows:—

I beg to move, "That the House do now adjourn." I submit this Motion with a view to make the statement which I promised yesterday.

Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds with this Motion, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether we shall be limited to half an hour's discussion?

That only applies after Government business has been disposed of.

I propose to withdraw my Motion after the conversations on this subject come to an end. Owing to the remarkable and quite unprecedented financial situation created by the events of the past few weeks, I deemed it to be my duty to summon conferences of the leading bankers and merchants and manufacturers of this Kingdom at the Treasury in order to confer as to the best way to meet it. The emergency is purely a temporary one, due to temporary causes and due very largely to the interruption of the flow of remittances from abroad, which are necessary in order to enable the discount market to meet its liabilities. There is no failure of credit, and I think it is a matter of overwhelming importance that that fact should be thoroughly realised. There was no failure of machinery, but there was a temporary stoppage of machinery, and that is all that occurred. It was just a temporary dislocation of machinery which might have caused very great inconvenience, and might undoubtedly have led to financial collapse in certain cases if it had not been dealt with promptly. I have had a number of conferences at the Treasury, and I am very glad to be able to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), at the invitation of the Prime Minister and myself, has taken part in those conferences, and his assistance and advice has been invaluable. The conferences are not quite over and, therefore, I am not in a position to state the whole of the arrangements which are likely to be come to because there is a good deal of work still to be done.

I thought, however, that the House would like to know some of the decisions at which we have arrived. We had already taken steps in anticipation of a possible emergency to suspend the Bank Act, in order to enable the bankers to secure an adequate supply of notes. We came to the conclusion, after very careful consideration—I am proud to say with the unanimous assent of every interest—that it was not necessary to suspend specie payments, and that we were able to meet the emergency without in the slightest degree interfering with our present basis. But at the same time we thought it desirable to make arrangements with a view to economising the supply of gold. There was a danger that individuals—I am sorry to say that that was a peril which the bankers had good reason to anticipate after what happened on Friday—might selfishly attempt to hoard gold in order, conceivably, to put themselves in a better position than their neighbours. I think it is vital that it should be made clear to those individuals, and to the nation at large, that any man who does that is inflicting a great injury on his fellows. In this tremendous struggle finance is going to play a great part. It will be one of the most formidable weapons in this exhausting war, and anyone who, from selfish motives of greed or from excessive caution or cowardice, goes out of his way to attempt to withdraw sums of gold and appropriate them to his own use—let it be clearly understood that he is assisting the enemies of his native land, and he is assisting them more effectively probably than if he were to take up arms. Perhaps it will be an additional inducement to him not to do so if he knows that he will not benefit himself in the end. This is of enormous importance, with a view to what will happen when the banks open on Friday.

We must appeal to the patriotism of every citizen in this land. Every man, not merely the armed forces of the Crown, but every citizen as well, must assist to carry the country through this terrible emergency. Everyone knows that the difficulty during the last few days has been that your £5 notes are not convertible. You cannot induce anybody to take them, unless the bill is represented by £5. You get no change, and the result is, undoubtedly, a very great inconvenience to the public. With a view to effecting an economy of gold without causing any inconvenience to the public, whilst at the same time maintaining the gold standard here in its integrity—because after all we have got to think of what will happen after the war—we have got to maintain the credit of this country, which has been due to a very large extent to the fact that this has been the free market for gold in the world—we propose to issue £1 notes and notes for 10s., convertible into gold at the Bank of England. They will be available on Friday morning. Of course, it is a process that takes some time. The machinery for the purpose is a very limited one. You have got to print them on a certain type of paper, and it may well be that on Friday morning we shall not have a sufficient supply, but we shall be able to turn them out on Friday morning. We hope then to have about £3,000,000 ready, and after that we shall be turning them out at the rate of about £5,000,000 a day until there is a sufficient supply. We came to the conclusion, after a very anxious discussion, that on the whole it had better be a Government note on the security of the Government, for reasons I need not enter into at the present moment. I need hardly say that there are arguments on both sides, but on the whole we came to the conclusion that it was better to make it a Government note, with, of course, Government security, and convertible into gold at the Bank of England. At the same time I hope it will not be converted. As these notes may not be available in sufficient number by Friday morning, it is proposed to make postal orders legal tender on the same terms. They will be convertible into gold at the Bank of England. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Post Office? "] They will be convertible at the Post Office in the ordinary course of business. At the same time, you do not want to draw a postal order at one counter and then go to the next and ask for gold. That certainly would not be economising gold.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to charge poundage on the £1 note?

No. Anyone, for instance, drawing from a savings bank, instead of getting £5 notes or gold, will get these postal orders.

Will these postal orders be distinguishable from others?

No, it is really in order to meet the difficulties of printing. It is not proposed that they should be part of the permanent arrangement. We cannot by Friday morning, as a physical process, have an adequate supply of £1 notes, and therefore we have got to think of another sort of Government document that can be used for the moment as a substitute. There are about £2,000,000 of these bank notes—

There are the small notes.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. With the small notes, there are about £4,000,000. They will be of very great convenience to the public, but I hope they will be withdrawn after a short time, when we are able to establish our system of £1 notes. There is another very important decision which was taken. I am very glad that the Bank of England have found themselves in a position to say that they can reduce, as from Friday next, the Bank Kate from 10 per cent. to 6 per cent. After the fullest investigation, they feel confident of their strength to be able to get through this emergency without this abnormal Bank Rate. That will assist the business community very considerably. On Monday we issued a Proclamation for a limited moratorium. It was limited because we had to deal with one special emergency which had arisen on Tuesday morning in the bill market. We took full powers for a wider moratorium, but we had to issue that one, so as to give notice in time that on Tuesday morning the bill market would be relieved of its very great anxiety. It was not intended to be the final form of the Proclamation. It is generally felt by-traders, as well as by the banks, that the moratorium ought to be more extended; otherwise you will be relieving a certain section of the community of their liability to discharge their debts for the time being, whilst at the same time people who are depending upon them to meet their debts will be left in a difficulty. Of course it is quite obvious that there must be exceptions to that moratorium. The Government must be an exception. The Government must discharge its debts—old age pensions, insurance, and liabilities of that kind. Wages, of course, must be paid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rent"?] That is one of the topics under discussion at the present time.

What about taxes?

I would rather these things were not entered into at the present time, because we have not quite come to a conclusion at the conference we are holding upon the extent of the limit of the exceptions. It is felt that the moratorium ought to be for a month, and that will leave ample margin to enable trade to adapt itself to its present conditions, and to resume its ordinary course. Of course, it is only in respect of debts contracted before the moratorium. Everybody will realise that. Bills, cheques and drafts, presented at the Clearing House, will be dealt with as usual, subject to a discretion to be used in exceptional cases. Crossed cheques, therefore, should be used in the ordinary way wherever possible.

I will point out what that means. It means that the bankers consider themselves in a position to resume the ordinary normal course of business, but when they say that they must have discretion in exceptional cases, with regard to cheques passing through the Clearing House, it means that it must not be used for the purpose really of defeating the moratorium by passing cheques through the Clearing House in order to be able to withdraw an exceptional amount of gold, or for some purposes of that kind. Any ordinary transaction that would have taken place if we had not had the present condition of things—that kind of transaction will be treated in exactly the same way as it used to be before the present moratorium. They feel themselves in a position to do so. The bankers are making arrangements whereby cash and legal tender will be available for wages, salaries and the normal cash requirements of daily life. These decisions are taken with a view of restoring the normal in business as quickly as possible, and the bankers and traders are all confident that if these steps are taken, as they will be taken on Friday morning, with the patriotic assistance of the public, because that is really essential, business will be resumed on Friday morning; and, what is so very important, there will not be the necessity which otherwise might arise for closing mills and factories and throwing hundreds of thousands out of work. So far has the decsion been taken. There are a few more decisions which will have to be taken, and it will be necessary for me—perhaps to-morrow—to introduce a Bill with regard to the issue of the notes, and one or two other matters which may be decided upon in the course of the afternoon's discussion. At the same time I think it desirable the public should know, at the earliest possible moment, the steps that are being taken.

I hope the House will permit me to say a few words. I had, I need scarcely say, no hesitation in accepting the invitation of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to co-operate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this action, and I need scarcely say also that my action in so doing had the full approval of my Leader and of my colleagues. I think a satisfactory feature of the conferences which, under these circumstances, I have attended, has been the exhibition of a common desire on all sides to meet the present emergency with the least possible disturbance, and the least inconvenience possible to all the different interests concerned. I can say, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that the Bank of England, the great Joint Stock Banks, and the other financial and trading interests are working together, and that the decision which he announced are the result of their common deliberation, and are what they all believe to be the best in the present circumstances. No doubt there is a certain difficulty, a certain anxiety in the mind of many members of the public today, and especially of the smaller public, quite apart from the very big interests affected, arising out of the shortness of currency, and especially of small currency. The steps that have been taken will rapidly place a large supply of additional currency and of small currency at the service of the public. They need not, therefore, be under any anxiety lest they should be embarrassed by a shortness of supply, and under these circumstances I am sure that we can count on them in their own interest, as well as because it is their duty to the nation, to co-operate with the great traders and with the great banking interests to facilitate the measures which the Government and those interested are taking, and carry on business as far as may be in the normal and usual way—without panic, without excitement, and without undue anxiety.

I am perfectly confident, if the public keeps its head, the public will be safe. If all of us go about our affairs in the normal way, asking no more than is required to carry on our normal business, all will get what they want. But if in any quarter panic is encouraged, either by selfishness or greed, it might produce difficulties in other quarters, reacting in the end, if those difficulties arise, with as much force on the original offenders as on any of those on whom they will have brought suffering. I want to make one appeal to the House if I may make it. I confess it may be said I am not in a position to make it, because I have sat with the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday and to-day, and have taken part in his deliberations. But I submit to the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a statement of broad principles and of the main methods by which it is proposed to deal with this crisis, and I appeal to the House, as all the details cannot and have not been settled yet, to avoid discussing them as far as possible, and to refrain from asking questions which will be fully answered in due time, but which it might be difficult to meet in full at the present moment.

I rise to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to say if the Scottish banking question has been considered, and if the bankers of Scotland have been granted powers in regard to the issue of the new notes?

We could not consider a pecuniary question without giving some thought to Scotland. We are considering the question of Scottish bank notes. Perhaps I had better not say more at the present moment. But the Treasury have their own views, and I think those are the views of the traders, but we have not yet placed the matter before the bankers, and perhaps it would be better not to make any announcement. I think the hon. Gentleman will find, however, that it will be perfectly satisfactory to every patriotic Scotsman. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has suggested that I should intimate that we are coining additional silver.

In banking matters Ireland and Scotland occupy very much similar positions. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is considering the position of banks in Ireland. Some slight modifications may be necessary in their case. We are extremely pleased to hear from him that the general financial position is very satisfactory. So far as the Irish people are concerned, I think they may be trusted to keep their heads in the matter. We have all to keep our heads, and we propose to do so in Ireland. My only reason for speaking at all is that I know the right hon. Gentleman has been consulting the representatives of the Irish banks, and it would satisfy those gentlemen if he were to say now that their representations were receiving his attention and that they would be dealt with to-morrow.

I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take into consideration the desirability that traders shall not sue for a debt in cases where a man presents a bank note or cheque in payment. A case has come to my notice where a trader demanded payment in cash for an account of £20. It would be a very great hardship if traders were to refuse legal tender at the present time.

I desire to ask whether the Government have not the power, with the consent of the House, to have the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) circulated in every town in the country. This is a matter of vital importance, and I do not think the country, or the ordinary man in the street, appreciates the importance of not hoarding gold. That should be brought home to everyone in the country. The Press have not given anything like the notice to this matter that they might have done. If the Government have that power, will they exercise it?

In strongly supporting the appeal just made, may I also ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to emphasise a remark which fell from him, which was not very distinct, with regard to the use of crossed cheques. I think a number of people who use crossed cheques nowadays do not appreciate that in paying an ordinary account with a tradesman or business person who has a bank that if they cross the cheque they cannot immediately demand cash in exchange for it. That will exercise some check on the amount of gold that is demanded. A person will have to draw his own cheque in order to get some more out.

In making a general reply, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make it absolutely clear that poundage on postal orders is not to be charged, and that if a man tenders a £5 note for the purpose of getting change and receives five £1 postal orders, he will not have to pay the poundage on the postal orders?

That is so.

I venture to make a suggestion on the lines followed by the last two speakers. Could not the Chancellor of the Exchequer circulate through all the post offices in the Kingdom some notice indicating the nature of these arrangements, and, if possible, include a photographic representation of these new notes? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] A great number of people, when they first use these notes, will probably hand them back and ask for cash. If some means were taken to inform the public of these notes it would assist them.

I have a specimen of the notes here: it is not a very pretty picture, because it is the first proof. I can assure the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Thomas Esmonde) that the question of the Bank of Ireland is being considered. There is only one special difficulty there, which, I think, can be surmounted with very great ease. That is a question on which we have not yet come to a decision. I have no doubt it can be settled in twenty-four hours, and probably I shall be able to make an announcement to-morrow. As to the-crossing of cheques, I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Wilson) for calling attention to it. I have no doubt at all that the observations he made will be reported. They will be a very useful contribution to what has been stated. With regard to poundage for the-purposes indicated by my hon. Friend (Mr. Robert Harcourt), there will be no poundage at all, because it will be legal tender. The hon. Baronet (Sir A. Mark-ham) suggested that the Press might be used to call attention to the dangers of hoarding gold from a national point of view. I hope notice will be taken of what he has said. The action of the Press would be exceedingly helpful to the Government if they took special notice of that point. The gold supply is adequate and sufficient. As a matter of fact it is still coming in. We have substantial consignments which I have no doubt will reach these shores before very long. I have not the faintest doubt on that head. I think there will be a continual flow, but at the same time we must give this assistance to the public. I can assure him that the Press would afford enormous assistance to us in calling the-attention of every individual throughout the country to the danger of hoarding gold at the present moment. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) that this is not quite the moment to press-questions such as those of my hon. Friend with regard to the details of the moratorium which are still under discussion. Any suggestion he can make I shall be very glad to bring to the notice of the Conference. I shall be better able to give an answer to the questions to-morrow.

What about taxes? [HON. MEMBERS: "Pay them!"]

I beg to move, at end of Clause, to add the words, "or such later date, not being later than the first day of October, one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, as the Local Government Board for Scotland may appoint."

I am prepared to accept the Amendment. It is purely optional. It leaves it to the discretion of the Local Government Board, and under present circumstances that might be useful.

I beg to move to leave out the words "a member" ["a member of the Royal College"], and insert instead thereof the words "one or more members."

I accept.

It, is only fair that we should exactly understand what this is.

This is a very simple Amendment. It will allow the local authority to appoint two members instead of one.

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "consult with," and insert instead thereof the words "obtain the concurrence of."

The Scottish Members of the Committee objected very strongly to this Amendment, and it was defeated. After all, the Secretary for Scotland is the head of the Board of Agriculture, and he would require to be consulted in every case, and it seems to us unnecessary to duplicate the work in that respect. It is scarcely fair to have this Amendment thrown at us again without having the Bill or even the Amendments in our hands. We did not know that this was being taken this afternoon, and none of us have the Amendments from the Vote Office. It is slightly unfair that we are not able to discuss this point when it was defeated by the majority of Scottish Members. Surely we ought to have some statement from the Scottish Secretary as to why he has accepted this. He ought to be fair to the majority of the Committee, and explain why he has altered his view.

It is very reasonable that my hon. Friend should ask me to explain why I have not altered my view but accepted this as part of an arrangement or compromise. Though I think the words which appeared in the Bill originally are the better form, practically it makes very little difference whether you have one form or the other, and if my hon. Friend does not make a great point of that I hope he will agree that we may make this concession to those who have made concession to us on other points.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "milk" ["for the importation of milk"], to insert the words "butter, cheese, or other milk products."

Words to the same effect are in the English Bill. I am not suggesting that we should follow the English Bill precisely—indeed, we are not doing so—still they have some force in showing that similar words should be inserted in the Scottish Bill. In the English Bill the words are "or other market products." Under the circumstances, I do not propose to resist this Amendment.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words, "or knowledge" ["with the consent or knowledge "], and insert instead thereof the words, "express or implied."

I beg to second the Amendment.

This is a matter of some difficulty, because, on the one hand, we do not wish to assume a knowledge. At the same time the word "consent" by itself may be held to imply formal or even written consent. I think the words now proposed by the hon. Member are a reasonable compromise, and will be a working compromise.

had given notice of an Amendment, after the words "reasonable time," in the proviso, to insert the words "or requires that it shall be determined as provided for in Sub-section (2) of this Section whether there is any reasonable necessity for such alterations or improvements."

I understand that the Secretary for Scotland is willing to accept an Amendment of mine which embodies the Amendment of which he has given notice. Perhaps it will be convenient if I read the words of the Amendment. I move, after the words "reasonable time," to insert the words "subject to the recovery from the tenant of such proportion of the expenses incurred as may be just and equitable under the circumstances of the case, regard being had to the term of any contract between the parties or with the landlord." Now come the words of which the right hon. Gentleman gave notice, "or requires that it shall be determined as provided for in Sub-section (2) of this Section whether there is any reasonable necessity for such alterations or improvements." Then I propose to add the words "or what proportion of the expenses shall be paid by the landlord and tenant respectively." The Clause, as it stands in the Bill, gives the tenant alone power, if he makes improvements, to recover any portion of the cost from the landlord. In many cases, undoubtedly, the landlord would be able more economically to make the improvements, and I think it would be fair that he should be given the option of making the improvements himself, but the Clause gives him no power to go to the arbiter and ask whether any portion should fall on the tenant or not. The additional words which I propose provide that if the landlord exercises the option he shall be entitled to recover the amount which the arbiter settles as fair and reasonable. There is this further point which I think is a substantial improvement, namely, that it would in many, if not in most, cases, be of great advantage to both landlord and tenant to know, before the alterations were executed, what proportion of the cost is going to fall on them respectively. The result of that would be that previous agreements would be come to in many cases, and thus the landlord and tenant would be saved having an arbitration at all. All the information would be before the arbiter before the alterations were made, and he would, therefore, be in a position to decide what proportion of the cost they had to pay if it had to be divided at all.

This Amendment seems rather complicated. The Amendment of which I gave notice, and which is on the Paper, carries out the pledge which I gave in Committee. I think it should be made clear that it shall be open to the arbiter to decide whether the alterations are reasonable. What the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Watson) proposes, as I understand, is that it should be open to the arbiter before the alterations are made to consider what proportion of the cost should fall respectively on landlord and tenant. I do not think that is unreasonable, but as the amendment is not on the Paper the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, if I accept it now, to-reserve the right of considering the matter, and having it altered in another place. I think that is a businesslike way of dealing with the Amendment.

The previous Amendments which have been made have been passed without our having an opportunity of considering them. As to this particular Amendment, I confess quite frankly that I am unable to express any opinion upon it, because I only partly heard what the hon. Member said when he was explaining it. It appears to me that it affects the right of the tenant to have improvements made, or, rather, to deal with the conditions which affect his right when improvements are made. No one can express an opinion as to the practical effect of the Amendment without having an opportunity of considering it, and I would suggest to the Secretary for Scotland and the House that in the circumstances in which we are met there is a presumption in favour of the decision arrived at by the Committee and against this Amendment which may have a much more serious operation than we are able to appreciate without having an opportunity of considering it. We have allowed all the other Amendments to go through, but I do think that on this matter it would be wise to allow the decision of the Committee to be the decision of the House.

The Committee expressly desired us to insert the Amendment which I have on the Paper.

I am not objecting to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment; I am objecting to the modification of it, which has been proposed by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Watson). I am quite willing to allow the Amendment, which embodies the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the Committee to go through, but with regard to the modification of it, I think the hon. Member ought not to press it, and the Secretary for Scotland ought really not to accept it.

I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will refuse to accept the Amendment. If it is inserted when the Bill goes to the House of Lords the Bill will come back here, and we can consider it then. I think that is fair. We Scottish Members spent four days upstairs on this Bill, and we should have an opportunity of looking at what this Amendment means. The Scottish Members know perfectly well that there are differences between the law of England and Scotland, and I suggest that the Secretary for Scotland, if he desires to accept the Amendment in the form in which it is proposed by the hon. Member, might have it inserted in the House of Lords in order that the Scottish Members, before it finally becomes law, may have an opportunity of objecting or agreeing to it.

I entirely agree with what fell from my hon. Friend (Mr. Falconer). I represent a Constituency which is largely interested in the question of milk supply. This Clause was considered' in Committee upstairs, and the wording, subject to the Amendment, which the Secretary for Scotland was going to propose was carefully adjusted in order to give the tenant the fullest right in carrying on his business, and bringing the premises up to modern requirements without unnecessary interference or control by the landlord. Under these circumstances, I am very much afraid that the additional' words which have been sprung upon us at the last moment would have a serious effect on the people concerned in carrying out their business in the way they wish. I very much object to the Amendment.

There is perhaps some misapprehension on the part of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in regard to the effect of the Amendment. I think they have entirely forgotten that Subsection (2) of this Section requires that a proportion of the expenses is to be settled by the arbiter. The question of dividing the expenses is not affected by this. Amendment at all. That is left absolutely open. I think the only changes the Amendment makes are two. First of all, it gives the landlord, if he chooses to execute the improvements, power to recover from the tenant the proportion of the expenses which the arbiter thinks just; and secondly, it gives him the opportunity of having the proportion settled before the improvements are actually carried out.

I hoped that the Secretary for Scotland would have agreed to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) to postpone his acceptance of the Amendment. I think it is being too lightly accepted. There will be no harm in delaying the matter until the Bill comes back from another place to be considered in this House. Surely he will agree to that as a compromise, rather than ask us to swallow the Amendment moved by the hon. Member opposite? This Amendment comes from the side that has opposed the measure, and I think we should have sufficient time to consider it.

I suppose we are all anxious to get this Bill. It is all very well to talk of giving additional time to consider the Amendment, but if it is not accepted now, the result may be that the Bill will not come back from the other House at all. At this time of the Session, I think it is dangerous to have any delay in the matter. The Secretary for Scotland has quite fairly asked that he should be allowed to reserve the right to consider the Amendment, and, if there is any objection to it, to give effect to that objection in the other place. I think the better course would be to take the line which the right hon. Gentleman suggests, subject to the Amendment receiving reconsideration by him.

I entirely concur with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Scott Dickson). I am perfectly willing to act on the suggestion of the Secretary for Scotland if he will give an opportunity for considering and discussing the Amendment when the Bill comes back from another place.

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "landlord" ["paid by the landlord"], to insert the words "and the tenant respectively."

I beg to move to leave out from the beginning of the Clause to the word "but" and to insert instead thereof the words

"The maximum amount which may be levied in the whole under Section seventy-one of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, shall be such sum as is equivalent (taken with any money carried to the Cattle Plague account before the commencement of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, and with any sums levied under that Act) to a poundage of one shilling in the pound on the net annual value of the property in all the administrative counties of Ireland, and accordingly Sub-section (5) of the said Section, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall have effect with the substitution of one shilling for eight pence."

I do not think that the Committee is aware of the necessity for this Bill. Is this Bill necessary this Session, because, as I understand, the right hon. Gentleman already has very considerable powers to deal with this subject.

At present we have power under the Act of 1894 to levy a rate up to 8d. in the £. We cannot afford to have the fund depleted to its full extent, and hence the necessity for this Bill. This does not touch the English trade at all. It simply extends the power to levy on the ratepayers, which has been exercised since the year 1866 without any complaint, to pay veterinary officers, and also to replenish the cattle disease fund for the payment of compensation for slaughter.

I beg to propose, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,

"(3) A seaman or apprentice to the sea service shall, during the period for which he is entitled to receive wages, take part, in accordance with any requirements of the master, in any muster or drill required by rules under this Section, and wilful failure or refusal on the part of any such seaman or apprentice so to take part in a muster or drill shall be regarded as wilful disobedience of a lawful command within the meaning of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section two hundred and twenty-five of the principal Act; but a seaman or apprentice to the sea service shall not be compelled to take part in a muster or drill at the end of a voyage."

This Clause is inserted to meet a proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) in connection with the enforcement of new rules with reference to the saving of life at sea. The Amendment which the hon. Member put down was not satisfactory, and I think that this carefully drafted Amendment will substantially meet the case.

I beg to move, to insert, after the word "Act" ["subject to the provisions of this Act"], the words "within six months after the date on which any rules made in accordance with Section 16 of this Act become valid."

The Government have an Amendment substantially to the same effect. The only difference is that the Government Amendment puts the period as not less than six months after the making of the rules, that is the date on which the rules are first published. But the rules are first to lie on the Table for forty days, and under the terms of the Government Amendment it might be quite possible for a shipowner to be obliged to comply with the rules, and subsequently to find the rules disallowed by Parliament. Therefore I submit that the form in which I put the Amendment is the proper one.

I beg to second the Amendment.

If the rules were disallowed by Parliament, of course that would make an end of the whole matter. Perhaps the hon. Member would be satisfied with the assurance which I can give him that we propose to insert in another place a provision delaying the operation of this Act as regards all these powers, and that that provision will be made after consultation and agreement with the shipping interests.

May I ask is that on account of special circumstances?

Yes.

I beg to propose, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "Provided that the obligations imposed by this Section shall not come into operation until such date not being less than six months after the making of those rules, as may be specified in the rules."

I have Amendments down to Clauses 16 and 17, but I do not propose to move them, having regard to the assurance which the Parliamentary Secretary has just given.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

I bog formally to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words "On receiving notice of a resolution of any local authority as hereinafter defined requesting them so to do."

I understand that there is a general feeling that we should take this Clause, the immediate object of which is for the housing of Government employés at Rosyth and possibly other places. Clause 1 has been postponed, as was indicated it would be on the first occasion. Under the circumstances in which we find ourselves I shall be prepared to go on with Clauses 2, 3, and 4, subject to making certain Amendments, so that we may take out such money as may be required to at once make places for Government employés, whose cases will shortly, no doubt, become urgent.

I think the selection which the right hon. Gentleman has made is one to which we can agree, though there may be a word or two to be said in connection with certain points in the Clauses.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Treasury" ["approval of the Treasury"], to insert the words "and with the concurrence of the local authority as hereinafter defined."

I think the Government gave notice that they would make some suggestion on this point.

dissented.

I do not desire to raise the question, but I wish to know whether the Government desire to restrict the provisions of the Clause only to those actually employed "on Government works," or whether they are prepared to leave out the words "on Government works," so as to extend the operation of the Act to all persons in Government employ, because some of the worst cases in regard to housing of Government servants are among those who are employed continuously.

I will consider that point and, if necessary, make an Amendment in another place. I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

I am not quite sure that the words of the Amendment as they stand are not too narrow, and do not allow the Government to do that which the whole House think they should be able to do.

On the Second Reading it was pointed out that the words "on behalf of Government works," would be too narrow an interpretation, but I see no reason whatever why we should not put in, "on any Government works," "or any Government establishments."

That does not meet my point. The right hon. Gentleman has appealed to me, however, not to press this Amendment in existing circumstances, and I should be the last to do so. I hope, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter consideration in another place.

Has the Government under this Bill taken powers to over-ride the provisions of the Public Health Act?

We act under the existing law.

That point does not arise here.

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and I hope that my colleagues will follow my example.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the "word "dwellings" ["and to build dwellings"], to insert the words, "by contract but not otherwise."

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is contemplated to build these houses as much as possible under local contracts, a system which has one or two very great advantages. In the first place, it is much more likely that local labour will be employed in the different places where these dwellings are erected instead of a great central Department sending people down from London. In the second place, it would be more economical and would prevent a large staff of inspectors being set up by the Department. I think it is most desirable that the work should be done by contract. I do not wish, however, to put any impediment in the way of the Bill passing in its present form.

I take it that the Office of Works would, as a rule, put this work under contract, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not tie our hands, and will not press his Amendment.

I stated that I was not pressing the Amendment, and I only desire to express my opinion that it would be desirable in many cases to proceed by way of contract.

Is it not necessary to also strike out the second and third paragraphs of Sub-section (2) at the end of the Clause? They do not appear to me to have anything to do with the matter.

I will take note of what the Noble Lord has pointed out, and, as I have stated, any consequential Amendments which may be found to be necessary will be looked into.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "having for their objects" ["having for their objects the erection"], and to insert instead thereof the words "whose objects include."

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the public utility societies have other objects besides the erection and management of dwellings for the working classes. One of their objects is to lay out gardens in connection with the cottages, and to provide pig-sties and other outbuildings, and only a slight alteration in the wording would enable the societies to carry on their work.

It seems to me that Amendment would require the societies to be approved societies.

They would have to be approved by the Treasury, and that Department would not approve of a society unless its main object was the erection of cottages.

I am fully in agreement with my hon. Friend's Amendment, though, I confess, I am a little doubtful as to the proposed words.

I will consider the matter.

I do not intend to press this Clause, but I would like an assurance that a record may be kept of particulars relating to any lands that may be purchased under the provisions of this Bill. I put a question to the Prime Minister asking that such should be done in the case of all land purchased for Government Departments, and he gave me a promise he would consider it. I hope that the same principle will be adopted in any purchase under this Bill.

I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment as it is controversial.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The object of this Clause is to render houses built on Crown land under this Bill subject to the provisions of the Public Health Acts and to require the plans to conform with the by-laws of the local authority; and also that, after erection, the local authorities should have power to inspect as in the case of other cottages. It is very important that that should be the case. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance that it will be so, and if he does, I do not propose to proceed with the new Clause.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an important point. I have no doubt the houses built on our land under this scheme would conform with the provisions of the Local Government Board.

It is very important that the future maintenance of the houses should be subject to the provisions of the Public Health Acts and the local regulations.

May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking that he will consider this matter. I do not think it can be judiciously discussed just now.

Is it not the case as far as these houses are concerned that those responsible could be called upon to comply with the regulations.

No, not as far as Crown land is concerned. I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I have no doubt that these would be in accordance with the views of the local authority. As the Noble Lord suggests, I will look into the point carefully and with full sympathy for the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

There may be drafting Amendments and Amendments necessary to carry out undertakings, and we propose to make some of them in another place. They will be made in accordance with the spirit in which the matter has been considered by the Committee.

I wish to make an explanation. When this Bill was last before the House and was in its consideration stage, I was inadvertently led into an error which I now wish to correct. I was under the impression that the petitioners against the Bill had not been charged the usual fees of the House owing to the fact that their hearing was due to a special instruction of the House. I have since found that that was not so. I was under a wrong impression, and I find that fees were charged. I think it is due to the petitioners and their agents that I should remedy that statement on the first opportunity I have had.

I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

I have heard rumours that some understanding has been come to with regard to the passage of this Bill, but I do not know what the conditions are. My constituents are strongly opposed to the Bill, and after reading the Bill and hearing the arguments in previous Debates, I feel that I must move the rejection of the measure with the object of giving those interested an opportunity of making a statement upon the matter. We have been told time and again that a very large number of those who hold industrial policies in the company were under the impression that they were bonâ fide members, having certain rights. That may be right or it may be wrong, but, in view of the position taken up by the company, I think that in justice to these people who have paid their money for many years, and have been the backbone of the company, a statement ought to be made on the matter.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I certainly think that the statement which has been so honourably explained by the Chairman of Ways and Means did influence, I will not say to a considerable, but to an appreciable extent, the Vote on the last occasion. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] We do not attach the slightest blame to the right hon. Gentleman for his lack of information on that point. We feel that this class of legislation affects very seriously indeed the interests of vast bodies of poor people, and that, when they themselves, because of their very poverty are unable to combine so effectively as people better placed in society can, and when they are unable to present their case before the Committee with anything like the same efficiency and the same display of intellect, it throws upon this House a heavier responsibility than might otherwise be the case. It would be invidious and tiresome to go into the arguments once again, and for the purpose of finding whether a friendly arrangement has been come to, and in order not to waste the time of the House, I beg formally to second the Motion.

I do not know of any arrangement beyond this, that some hon. Members felt that the matter had been so thoroughly discussed before that under present circumstances it was not advisable to renew the discussion to-day. I do not think that I should be studying the convenience of the House if I went further into the matter. The point raised by hon. Members below the Gangway has been considered on the various stages of the Bill. Their view has not prevailed, but it has been thoroughly discussed; therefore I hope my hon. Friends will not press their Motion to a division, but will accept the verdict of the House.

I beg to move to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

It is well known that the House has certain powers under ordinary circumstances in regard to private Bills such as this, and if ever a case called for the use of those powers to the very utmost to prevent the passing of a Bill, this is one. I do not want to enter into the general principles of the measure. The Bill is no doubt an important one to Glasgow. Amongst other principles it involves the carrying still further of an enormous scheme of municipal trading. From one point of view or another, we might, in ordinary circumstances, have had an opportunity of effectively bringing the real merits or demerits of such a proposal before the House. This scheme of municipal trading in the present instance proposes to drive a tramway line altogether unnecessarily through the centre of a great branch of the University of Glasgow—the Queen Margaret College—which not only provides for the education of women, but is without the possibility of gainsaying the most important institution existing in Scotland for the higher education of women. There are between 600 and 700 lady students in the University of Glasgow, and a very large number of them attend this Queen Margaret College. The college has been built up by the hard efforts and loving care of those who founded it, and those who have for more than a generation spent their money and their lives in fostering it. It has very admirable buildings, situated in large grounds, the amenity of which adds very greatly, not only to the name and dignity of the college, but also to the efficiency of the work there carried on. Without considering whether any alternative plan might be carried out, the Committee entrusted with this Bill has chosen to give its assent to a scheme by which the grounds and buildings of the college will be entirely ruined.

Oh!

I am quite prepared to make out my case. It is, no doubt, suggested that the corporation should take a very important part of the grounds of the college, changing what are quiet and pleasant premises into the noisy neighbourhood of a thoroughfare along which tramways will be running all day long. At present the neighbour of the Queen Margaret College is the Botanic Gardens, and the site was selected on that account. If you take off a considerable part of the premises and construct thereon a noisy thoroughfare, with rumbling trams running all day long, you will practically destroy the amenity of the grounds and the efficiency of the work of the college. There was another plan set aside by the Committee without any consideration at all. The opponents of the Bill were not allowed even to prove how efficacious it might be. That was the plan of taking the tramway through a hideous erection bearing the strange name of the Kibble Conservatory, or something of that sort—a building which might, with great advantage to the dignity of Glasgow, to the benefit of the Botanic Gardens, and to the pleasure of the eye of the passer-by, be swept away—in order to enable the tramway to be constructed without interfering with the college. But it seems to me to be a source of pleasure to this aggrandising, aggravating corporation that it should choose precisely that route which most seriously affects this great place of education. Nothing would satisfy them except interfering by taking off a considerable part of the premises or else driving their tramway through the middle of the building and leave the college houseless. Another proposal laid before the Committee and considered by them was that the corporation should reinstate the college' on some other ground equally adapted to the purpose, free from restrictions as to building, so that the college authorities could be enabled to erect suitable buildings. That very reasonable plan was understood to be accepted by the leading counsel for the promoters of the Bill. I will read an extract from the notes of the proceedings before the Committee:—

"Principal Counsel for the Corporation: Dr. Murray said there is a site upon which they could house.

Mr. Lyndon Macassey: No, he did not.

Counsel: As I understand, that site would do if it were free from restrictions?

The Witness: If it were free from restrictions.

Counsel (on the part of the Corporation): I am willing to buy that land. I am willing in my very next Bill I have in Parliament to put in a Clause freeing it from restrictions, and to hand over that to them as part of the compensation for the Queen Margaret, the rest of the compensation to be determined by an arbitrator.

The Witness: But we proposed that ages ago, and you would not listen to it.

The Chairman: I thought I was seeing daylight in this complicated matter."

The Committee adjourned in order that on that basis a compromise might be effected. But when they came together to consult, the corporation offered a certain sum of money, but would take no responsibility whatever for assisting the college to obtain another site, but left them to fight against the proprietors in the neighbourhood, whose land was to be obtained only under severe restrictions. To remove those restrictions the corporation would not give the slightest help. Then follow—and I wish to call the attention of the Chairman of Committee to this—these words:—

The Witness: We do not like the site, but we will take it.

Mr. Lynden Macassey: That is free from restrictions?—Yes.

The Chairman: It is very necessary that the corporation should undertake that.

That was the pledge given by the Corporation, accepted by the Chairman, and made the basis of a bargain-that is entirely repudiated when we come to deal with the Promoters. I never knew a great Corporation so carried away by its enthusiasm for a matter of this sort, as to be unfair to a great educational institution.

Will the hon. Member say how much of the garden of this institution is being taken?

The point is the separation of the garden from the institution, so that the students will be studying in the midst of a thoroughfare. Is not that absolutely destroying the amenities of the site altogether? I ask hon. Members to remember, even under the strained circumstances under which I speak to-day, and in which my powers as a private Member in obstructing legislation of this kind are so severely restricted, to remember if they condone this, what sort of precedent will be created? What sort of institution will be sacred against the maw of municipal legislation, seeing the Corporation care for nothing but the dividends they obtain?

No dividends are paid!

I can only raise my protest, not only on behalf of the University of Glasgow, but on behalf of similar institutions elsewhere against this proposal. I know no precedent for taking away part of the premises, and for practically breaking up a great institution of this kind without aiding it in the least degree to reinstate itself in another place. Is the university merely to take the small sum offered by arbitration and to be left to wander about and to look for a site on which to place their institution, knowing as they do, and as the corporation does, that the sites all round in the neighbourhood conveniently placed are under such restrictions as render them, unless you obtain an Act of Parliament with the help of convocation practically useless for the purpose.

I cordially second the Amendment. I am not a Scottish Member, but I have the honour of being a graduate of the University of Glasgow, an honour which I have been in the enjoyment of for twenty years, and during that time I have many times worked with the distinguished men who constitute the faculty of the university; therefore, I know something about their fairness and also of their ability in directing the fortunes of that institution. To a Southerner like myself it comes as a matter of great astonishment that there should be any question of a dispute between the City of Glasgow and the university, the home of Adam Smith, James Watt, Lister, Kelvin—[HON. MEMBERS: "And yourself!"]. I am aware, from direct intercourse, of the very strong views that the authorities of the university took on this, matter, and the way they regard it as an exercise of tyranny, and if I may venture to express what is given to me of their views, the public opinion of the City of Glasgow has not had the opportunity of expressing itself on this subject. The negotiations concerned with this Bill have been conducted by the officials of the Corporation of Glasgow practically without contact with the corporation itself. I think I am expressing the opinion of many members of the university that if they had had time to put their case before the City of Glasgow they would have obtained strong support; that in fact, they would have won their case, and it would not have been necessary to make the proposal. I formally second the Resolution on the ground I have stated. To a person south of the Tweed it does seem a matter of great astonishment that such a quarrel should have arisen at all.

Perhaps it would be desirable to say at once how the matter was dealt with upstairs by the Committee of which I was Chairman. The hon. Member for Glasgow University today talked about the "aggrandisement of au aggravating corporation," of "enthusiastic tyranny," of "caring nothing but for the dividends which it could get." That is the way the hon. Member for Glasgow University dealt with the subject. I can assure the House that that was not the spirit in which the Committee of this House dealt with this Bill, and I do not think it is the spirit in which any Member, if I may say so with respect, should treat a Bill promoted by a responsible corporation like Glasgow. Let hon. Members look at the Clause which the hon. Member for the University has put upon the Paper. It is true that he has not moved it, but the Clause on the Paper shows the spirit of the hon. Member. It is an impossible Clause. No corporation would have inserted in its Bill a Clause for reinstatement on the lines that are here put down by the hon. Member—I suppose on behalf of the university! That was rather the difficulty that we were in in Committee. My colleagues and myself took a great deal of pains with regard to this Bill. We considered that the fact that the corporation proposed to take part of the ground of St. Margaret College—

You do not even know the name!

Queen Margaret College. I know the circumstances very well. Glasgow Corporation proposed to take part of the ground of Queen Margaret College, an educational institution in Glasgow, given by a benevolent lady for the benefit of the education of young women. That fact weighed very much with the Committee. We felt that it was not an ordinary case of a corporation taking property, and if there was anything that a Committee of Parliament could do, or anything that Parliament could do, in the passage of this Bill to make an equitable arrangement and accommodation between the corporation and university, it was the duty of the Committee to do it. We struggled for two days in trying to bring about a fair accommodation. As the hon. Gentleman opposite has pointed out, 1, on one occasion, said that I thought I saw daylight. We adjourned the Committee one day until the next in the hope that the parties would agree, but the words read by the hon. Member as to the new site and the restrictions do not quite bear the interpretation he put upon them. There is a technical reading in those words that it is impossible to go into now, but when we met the next morning after adjournment, and I hoped to hear that the Glasgow Corporation and the Glasgow University had come to an agreement, we found, to our regret, that they had not done so.

Because the corporation repudiated the undertaking of their counsel.

I dispute that entirely. If the hon. Member had waited for me to finish my sentence he would have heard what I said in regard to that. We met next morning, regretting that the parties had not come to agreement. My colleagues and myself all agreed that the reason that an arrangement had not been come to was owing to the attitude of the university, and was not the fault of the corporation. That did not, of course, lead the Committee to cease its effort to do all it could to make a proper arrangement, but an arrangement by agreement proved impossible. Hon. Members who know the procedure in these matters know that no Committee can, while considering a Bill of this nature, put any reinstatement Clause in it unless by agreement. Although I hoped there would be agreement on the question of reinstatement the day that we adjourned, the fact that there was no agreement made it impossible for the Committee to proceed on the lines of an arrangement, because it was beyond our power to set ourselves up as arbitrators.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what the corporation did propose?