said their Lordships would recollect that on the previous evening he was told that his Amendment to Clause 11 was not in order because the words "twenty pounds," referred to in the clause, did not occur in Section 72 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, but did occur in Section 69. The Department had since referred to those sections, and found that that was not the case, but that the words "twenty pounds" did occur in Section 72. He thought it right, in justice to that able official the Government draftsman at the Irish Office, that he should point out that the mistake was not his. The Amendment under discussion on the previous day when the debate was adjourned was to insert, in Clause 11, after the word "Acts," the words "section 71 and." The Clause would then read—

"For the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts section seventy-one, and section seventy-two of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as amended by the Second Schedule to the Act of 1890, shall have effect as if 'one hundred pounds' were substituted therein for 'twenty pounds.'"

He had discussed the point with Lord Atkinson, who now agreed that if the reference to section seventy-one were inserted it would be all that was necessary.

expressed regret for having misled the House on the previous day. He had accurately stated the provisions of the sections, but had inadvertently given the wrong numbers.

said this was an Amendment somewhat limiting the scope of the clause. The noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Atkinson, also had an Amendment on the same point, and he thought it might be convenient if the two were discussed together.

explained that his Amendment was designed to secure that the sums paid by any particular local authority in respect of any interest in land taken under any scheme to persons not absolutely entitled to the interest purchased should not exceed in the aggregate £300. Under the clause as it stood the limited owner might dispose of a considerable amount of property in £100 portions, and put the money into his own pocket. The object of the Amendment was to lay it down that a limited owner should not be able to part with more than £300 worth of property in this way.

failed to see the convenience of taking the two Amendments together. His Amendment was the result of consideration on the part of those who had studied the question on its own merits, and he respectfully pressed it.

then put Lord Ashbourne's Amendment.

hoped that, as the House had accepted Lord Ashbourne's Amendment, Lord Atkinson would not consider it necessary to press his Amendment. If it had been shown that there was any real likelihood of such a contingency as the noble and learned Lord had outlined, the Government would have agreed as to the necessity of some such words. A similar clause to the one in the Bill was to be found in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and in the Labourers Act, 1906, and now that £60 had been inserted instead of £100 the clause was identical with the one in the Labourers Act of 1906. No such safeguard was thought necessary in that case, and the particular evil which the noble and learned Lord feared had never occurred under the other Act he had just quoted. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

said the fact that the amount had been reduced to £60 rendered it all the more necessary, in his opinion, to persist in the Amendment. It only now interposed a restriction when the person not absolutely entitled to the interest purchased had received the £60 five times. The noble Lord had made a point of the fact that there was no such safeguarding clause in the Labourers Act. That was quite true; it was not required in that Act, as it was very unlikely that more than one portion of the same property would be taken.

In spite of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I venture to maintain that my noble friend behind me (Lord Denman) was perfectly right. The object, as I take it, of the noble and learned Lord is to prevent the limited owner from receiving, piece by piece, a sum which becomes large in the aggregate. By reducing the sum which he can receive at one time from £100 to £60 you certainly diminish the probability that in all he will receive a Urge amount, which it is generally agreed he ought not to have. Therefore, I maintain that the argument of my noble friend is perfectly sound.

said it would be within the recollection of their Lordships that, on the Report stage, the words "nothing in this Act" were substituted for the words "nothing in this section" The subsection now read—

"(4) Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorise the appropriation or utilisation for the purposes of the Act of any common or common-able land, or any recreation ground, village green, or other open space dedicated to the use of the public, or any disused burial ground, or any land held on trusts which prohibit building thereon, or he'd for public or charitable purposes."

was grieved to think that any argument he had used at an earlier stage of the Bill should have afforded fresh material for noble Lords opposite still further to mutilate the measure. Of all the harmful and destructive Amendments that had been moved and carried in this Bill, he regarded this as one of the worst. Not only would it exclude certain towns from the benefit of the Bill—that was serious enough from the point of view of the Government—but it went still further. The Bill repealed certain earlier housing Acts, and if the Amendment were adopted it would strike out a number of urban districts from the advantages of the Bill. Former housing Acts being repealed the Amendment would take away from those districts rights already conferred by Parliament. The names of the urban districts to which he referred were Belturbet, Carrickmacross, Castleblayney, Coothill, Granard, Keady, Newcastle (County Down), Portrush, Tanderagee, Trim and Warrenpoint. Surely it was rather a new departure for an individual Member of the House to move an Amendment on Third Reading which would take away from certain urban districts rights conferred by Parliament and which they had exercised in past years without, as he understood, any complaint whatever. He trusted that, after what he had said, the noble Lord would not think fit to press the Amendment.

said he supposed the noble Lord had considered the observations he had made, but he would point out that the Amendment stated that this Bill should not apply to any town with a population of less than 2,000. There was no schedule of repeals, and, from a hasty examination of the Bill while the noble Lord was speaking he did not see how it could interfere with existing legislation.

I understand that the matter arises in this way, that these excluded districts could not administer the Housing Acts, because Clause 6 applies to all Orders of the Local Government Board made after the passing of this Act. Therefore, if one of these bodies were to apply to the Local Government Board for an Order it could only be obtained under Clause 6; and if the Act is not to apply to these districts Clause 6 would not apply to them, and they would, therefore, be unable to obtain an Order at all. That, I think, is the point which my noble friend desires to make.

My Lords, I think it would be convenient that I should, in a very few words, state to your Lordships what this Committee stage amounts to. This is a Bill which was referred to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses, and is for the purpose purely of consolidation. The Committee went through the Bill and reported that, as far as it could do so, it, exactly reproduced the law. In addition, they recommended certain Amendments, in respect of which they said—

"Some slight modifications of the law, which would not substantially alter it but tend to convenience, were suggested. The Committee have considered these suggestions, and recommend that the Amendments set out below be made. None of them affects the existing law in any important point; but, as they may affect it in some degree, they can hardly be called verbal Amendments."

I propose to move that the Amendments recommended by the Committee be inserted en bloc. I am extremely anxious, in this very valuable work of consolidating the law, that the Committee should be absolutely loyal to the directions of the House, and that, unless it is quite clear that the law is merely reproduced, they should report the Bill in the consolidated form and describe the nature of the Amendments before the House is asked to accept them. These Amendments really are of a kind that ought to be accepted for convenience. They were unanimously recommended by the Committee, and I hope your Lordships will insert them.

I assume that we may take the Memorandum attached to the Bill as, in the opinion of the Government, a full and accurate statement of the position?

Yes. The Amendments were unanimously recommended by the Joint Committee of both Houses, and this is the procedure we propose to adopt in the work of consolidation in future.

My Lords, before we adjourn I should like to ask the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can give the House any information in reference to the report of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Pennsylvania.

My Lords, I am sorry to say that the report alluded to by the noble Lord is correct. On Monday, 16th November, the Board received an intimation by cable from the British Consul at Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) that foot and mouth disease had appeared at Danville (Pennsylvania), a town in the centre of the eastern part of Pennsylvania, and about seventy miles from the port. Every port inspector of the Board was notified at once by telegram and enjoined to take special care in veterinary examination of all animals landed from America for slaughter. The Consul was instructed by the Foreign Office to report fully by telegram particulars upon which the report was based. I sent information to Lord Strathcona, and had an interview with him on the subject. On Wednesday, the 18th, a report from the Consul was received stating that the disease had been fully diagnosed as aphthous fever—foot and mouth disease—by both the Federal and State authorities. A later telegram stated that the senior veterinary officer of Pennsylvania reported that fourteen farms were affected in four counties adjacent to Danville; that 230 animals had been found affected with the disease and 200 destroyed. We are informed that the disease is under complete control and that the authorities are quite satisfied that the outbreak is checked. On receiving this information the Board decided forthwith to add the State of Pennsylvania to the Schedule of the Foreign Animals Order of 1903 and to that of the Foreign Hay and Straw Order of 1908. The necessary Order was made yesterday and comes into force on the 21st instant. The effect of the Order is to prohibit the landing in Great Britain of animals or of hay or straw from Pennsylvania as from that date, but special steps will be taken for dealing with cargoes now on the seas. The issue of the Order has been notified to the Federal Government by cable through the British Ambassador at Washington, who has been asked to acquaint the Board with precise particulars as to the nature and extent of the restrictions which have been imposed by the American authorities as regards the movement of animals within or out of the State of Pennsylvania.