Lords Sitting of 9 August 1898

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his Seat on the Woolsack at a quarter past Four of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.

    GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW WORKS) BILL.
    KEIGHLEY CORPORATION BILL.
    LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
    PAIGNTON IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    ST. HELEN'S CORPORATION BILL.
    WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
    WEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
    WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL.
    CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL. [H.L.]
    MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No.2) BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS) (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Reports of the Inspectors of Constabulary, for the year ended 29th September, 1897: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
HOUSE OF LORDS (OFFICES).
Second Report from the Select Committee, made; to be printed; and to be considered on Thursday next. (No. 209.)
PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT) BILL.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    POST OFFICE (LOCAL AUTHORITY GUARANTEE) BILL.
    HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

NONCONFORMIST MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with a consequential Amendment to the Bill: The said Amendment considered (on motion) and agreed to.

LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a second time, I think it necessary to say a few words of explanation as to the objects of the Bill. The necessity of the Bill arose in this way. Under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, Scotland and Ireland received respectively eleven-eightieths and nine-eightieths of the sum allocated to England. The Local Government Bill for Ireland of the present year has given to Ireland the equivalent of half of the agricultural rates levied in that country; and, of course, when that departure was taken, it was obviously unfair that Scotland should not get equal treatment. The object, therefore, of this Bill is to give to Scotland the equivalent of one-half of the agricultural rates levied in that country. The first clause, as your Lordships may observe, gives only seven-sixteenths, the reason being that the calculation in England is made exclusive of the value of agricultural buildings, whereas in Scotland there is no such division. It is believed, on good authority, that one-eighth represents the value of the buildings, and that accounts for the apparent difference between the proportions given to the two countries. The difference between the rating system in Scotland and the system in England and Ireland prevents the allocation of the money in precisely the same way, and therefore the Government have had to choose purposes to which this money could be properly and legitimately applied, as has been, in fact, the case on almost every other occasion when money has been given by former Scottish legislation. The second clause of the Bill indicates the purposes to which this money is to be applied. The sum with which the Bill deals is a sum of about £95,000 a year. The Act of 1896, which was passed for Scotland, contained no definite guarantee that the whole of the deficiency in the rates, caused by its provisions, would be made up, but it was the intention of the Government that it should all be made up. Owing to an error in the calculation, the sum which
620
was allocated to Scotland, being eleven-eightieths, did not come up to the standard which was first formed, and therefore there has been up to the present time a deficiency in the sum allocated to Scotland, which is required to make up the proportion of five-eighths of the rates given to the agricultural occupier. The first purpose under this Bill is to allocate the sum of £20,000 for the purpose of making up that deficiency. I think it necessary to add a caution that no guarantee is even now given that an absolute equivalent of five-eighths of the rates of any given year will be handed over, because the calculations are made upon the basis of the rates for the financial year ending May, 1896; if, in the meantime, the rates have risen, there will still be a small deficiency. The second purpose mentioned in the second clause of the Bill is to devote £25,000 a year to increasing the grant to meet the expenses of the police in Scotland. The sum given in Scotland for police, unlike that in England, does not amount to one-half the total expenditure. It was fixed in 1889 as a definite sum of £155,000; and as the population has increased, and as additions have been made to the police force, the proportion of the expenditure paid from the Imperial Exchequer has diminished. It is in no sense true to say that this increase of cost is due to extravagance on the part of the local authorities. The increase of the total sum expended upon police, from £310,000 in 1889 to £370,000 at the present time, arises from the necessity for more police in the more populous centres of Scotland. The sum given to Scotland for police will be raised to £180,000 a year, and though this does not quite work out at one-half the total expenditure, it will come much nearer to it than is the case at the present time. The third purpose to which a portion of this money is allocated is to enforcing the laws against trawling in the territorial waters. The complaints as to this practice have been very persistent in recent years, and it is a matter of common knowledge that the existing provisions for enforcing the law are not sufficient. In England fishery districts have been formed for enforcing the law, but this is not possible

621
in the case of Scotland, and the Act of 1885, which provided for the formation of Fishery Committees has, so far as its provisions are concerned, been almost entirely a dead letter. Protection to a certain extent has up to the present time been afforded by the Government, but it has been felt to be an injustice that that should be done for Scotland which is not done for England. The devotion of £15,000 a year, which is provided in the second clause for this purpose, is fair to Scotland and to England alike, because, although it does not come out of local rates, it comes out of money which is given to Scotland, and which would otherwise have gone to provide for expenditure which would have fallen upon the local rates. By an arrangement with the Treasury, the Treasury Votes will be wholly relieved in the future of any expenditure for this purpose, and I think that will be recognised under all the circumstances which I have endeavoured to explain, to be fair and reasonable. The last sub-section of this clause, as well as the proviso to the clause, contain some important provisions for the future of Scottish education. By the proviso, the money available for technical education under the Act of 1890, which was liable under that Act for deduction, on account of certain diseases of cattle, will now cease to be chargeable to that particular fund, and will be transferred to another fund. I do not think anything more ridiculous could be imagined than making the sum available for technical education, one year with another, depend upon how much happened to be necessary for compensation to owners of slaughtered cattle in that particular year. By the provisions we now make we believe greater stability will be given to the amount which may be spent on technical education, and those who have the management of the particular form of education will be better able to calculate, year by year, what resources they will have at their disposal. The sub-section further gives the residue of the sum with which we are now dealing—namely, £35,000 a year—to secondary and technical education in Scotland. We have already, under a former Act, £60,000 a year devoted for that purpose, but that sum is not nearly so large in proportion
622
to the needs of Scotland as the sum devoted in England; and I am bound to say that owing to the particular method in which it is distributed some doubts have arisen as to whether it is spent in the best possible way. We hope to do much, not only in adding to the resources available for technical education, but by inducing local authorities to consolidate and combine in the expenditure of the money which they have already at their disposal. Many questions of organisation are occupying the attention of the Scottish Education Department and the precise method by which this additional grant is to be applied will be a matter for future discussion. It is not provided for in the present Bill, and therefore I do not think it necessary to go into it at any length at the present time. All I can say is that the important considerations involved are not being lost sight of, and that we hope in a short time to present a scheme which will command the approval of those interested in Scottish education. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Question put.
Bill read a second time.
Standing Orders XXXIX. and XLV. suspended, and Bill read a third time and passed.

OUT-DOOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Then Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with. Bill read a third time, and passed.
SEED SUPPLY AND POTATO SPRAYING (IRELAND) BILL.
  KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER BILL.

    METROPOLITAN COMMONS BILL.
    EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    Read a third time (according to order), and passed.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACTS.
LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I beg to move for a Return showing, for the 12 months ended 30th November, 1897 (by counties), in respect of cases in which fair rents were fixed under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts by Assistant Commissioners, and in which applications for re-hearings were lodged and proceeded with, and in which court valuers reported what, in their opinion, should be the fair rent—

"I. The total number of such cases;

"II. The aggregate rental before the hearing by the Assistant Commissioners;

"III. The aggregate rental as fixed by the Assistant Commissioners;

"IV. The aggregate amount reported by tile court valuers as, in their opinion, the fair rent;

"V. The number of cases (in III.) in which the court valuers agreed with the fair rents fixed by the Assistant Commissioners, and the total amount of such fair rents;

"VI. The number of cases (in III.) in which the fair rents in the court valuers' reports exceeded the fair rents fixed by the Assistant Commissioners, and the aggregate amount of such rents, and of the difference;

"VII. The number of cases (in III.) in which the fair rents in the court valuers' reports were less than the fair rents fixed by the Assistant Commissioners, and the aggregate amount of such rents, and of the difference;

"VIII. The aggregate rental ultimately fixed on rehearing by the Land Commission;

"IX. The number of cases (in VIII.) in which the Land Commission fixed the fair rent at the figures in the court valuers' reports, and the aggregate amount of such rents;

"X. The number of cases (in VIII.) in which the fair rents fixed by the Land Commission exceeded the figures in the court valuers' reports, the aggregate amount of the rents so fixed, and of the difference;

"XI. The number of cases (in VIII.) in which the fair rents fixed by the Land Commission were less than the figures in the court valuers' reports, the aggregate amount of such rents, and of the difference."

When I moved for a somewhat similar Return to this a week ago the noble Earl [the Earl of Denbigh] who replied on behalf of the Govern-
624
ment made two objections to the Return I asked for. The first objection he made was that part of the information, sought for was already contained in the Report of the Land Commission, of which he was good enough to give me a copy at the time. That was with reference to the decisions in fair-rent cases come to by the Assistant Commissioners and the subsequent decisions of the Court of Re-hearing. The second objection he made was with reference to the other point on which I asked for information—namely, the Reports of the court valuers as to the fixing of fair rents. The noble Earl said that it was impossible to give a complete Return in the shape I asked for, inasmuch as a change had been introduced during the period I mentioned; that by instructions subsequently given to the court valuers they were ordered not to report as to the fair rent, but as to the letting value of the holdings in each case, and, therefore, the cases being different, the same comparison could not be instituted between their Reports and the decisions of the Assistant Commissioners, and of the Court of Re-hearing. As to the first objection raised by the noble Earl, I must remark that, in moving for the Return on the last occasion, my object was not to compare the findings of the Assistant Commissioners with those of the Court of Re-hearing. I was perfectly aware that these figures were to be found in the Report, but they did not answer the object I bad in view, which was to compare the Reports, of the court valuers with those of the Assistant Commissioners and the Court, of Re hearing. The noble Earl was perfectly accurate in saying that there had been an alteration in the manner in which the court valuers reported, but the Return I asked for could have been given for part of the time, and for the larger part, as the change was only introduced in December. I should have been glad to-have received it, on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. I then asked leave to amend my Motion, and the noble Earl stated very properly that if I did that he could not be expected to give an answer without notice. I have accordingly brought up the Motion in a different form, and I now ask for Returns for the

625
twelve months ending November last year. During that period there can be no doubt that the court valuers did report on the fair rent. In order to compare them properly with the decisions of the Assistant Commissioners and Court of Re-hearing, they must be printed together, and that is my reason for asking for this Return. It is a matter of great interest to others in Ireland besides landlords that this Return should be granted, in order that people can know exactly the position in which they stand in the matter of appeals. In the Report of the Fry Commission they deal severely enough with some of the Reports of the court valuers. They state that in several instances brought before their notice there was such "slavish copying" by the court valuers of the previous decisions of the Assistant Commissioners that arithmetical mistakes which appeared in one were reproduced in the other. On the other hand, I know a case to which no such exception could be taken where the court valuers gave an estimate of the fair rent differing materially from that of the Assistant Commissioners, and where the decision of the Court of Re-hearing differed again from that. As far as my present information goes that is an isolated case, but there may be more of them, and I think it would be only fair that the whole of the proceedings during the year should be stated, so that we may form a proper opinion upon them. If we find a disinclination on the part of the Land Commission to give this information, we shall be irresistibly driven to the conclusion that if the case I have mentioned is not an isolated one, it is, at any rate, a very rare one; for if they could show a decided variation between the Reports of the court valuers and the Assistant Commissioners they would be willing to allow them to be made public, especially in view of the statements contained in the Report of the Fry Commission. I "hope the Government will consider the importance of giving this Return, and agree to my Motion.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite accurate in the remarks he made with regard to my answer the other day. I am sorry that I was not able to give him a full reply to
626
the Question he then asked. I said that if he would put the Question on the Paper in an amended form it would receive consideration. I did not promise him anything definite in the way of an answer, and I can only tell him now that the Irish Land Commissioners report that the preparation of the Return which the noble Lord asks for would involve a careful examination of the Papers in each of some 1,500 cases, and would considerably retard the work of their Department, while, at the same time, it would serve no useful purpose, since the figures would be most misleading, as in numerous cases the decisions in the re-hearings were based on evidence and circumstances which had not been taken into consideration by the court valuers in preparing their reports. As I pointed out to the noble Lord, full statistics with reference to the decisions of the Commissioners in the appeal cases appear in the annual Reports of their proceedings, and in the published Returns of the Commissioners, all of which are circulated as Parliamentary Papers. I regret to inform the noble Lord that, having regard to the foregoing objections raised by the Irish Land Commission, Her Majesty's Government are unable to consent to the Return he asks for.
LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I am very much disappointed with the answer of the noble Earl, and I cannot conceive that the labour of preparing these Returns would be so great as has been represented. It seems manifest that the Land Commissioners are afraid of publicity, and wish to conceal the action of their subordinates. I am surprised to find that Her Majesty's Government do not see this, but allow them to draw a veil over and screen from the light of day the effects of a system of which the Government have always maintained that they highly dir approve, and the introduction of which they so strenuously resisted when in Opposition. I have nothing further to do but to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GRAND JURY CESS AND POOR RATES.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I beg to move for a Return showing—

"I. For each county in Ireland (the North and South Ridings of county Tipperary to be treated as separate counties) for each of the five years ended respectively on 31st July, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896, and 1897, the amount of the grand jury cess which was—

1.Directed to be levied under the county treasurer's warrants;

2.Lodged to credit of county treasurer by the barony collectors;

3. Re-presented on the premises as arrears deemed to be recoverable;

4. Re-presented on the barony as insolvencies, etc., deemed to be irrecoverable:

"II. For each poor law union in Ireland, for each of the five years ended respectively on 31st August, 1893, 1894,1895, 1896, and 1897, the amount of the poor rate (including all charges levied as poor rate) which was—

1. Directed to be raised in the warrants issued to the poor rate collectors;

2. Actually levied by the poor rate collectors under same warrants;

3. Treated as irrecoverable."

THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, the Motion of the noble Viscount has been submitted to the Local Government Board for report, and I am afraid I cannot do more than give the answer of the Local Government Board. They say that, in their opinion, the Return would involve very considerable expense, and would give an immense deal of trouble to county officers and poor law officers, at a time when they are working at high pressure in preparing for the Local Government Bill. The Government hope, therefore, that the Return will not be pressed for.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: In view of the fact that the whole attitude of Her Majesty's Government in the matter of Returns relating to Ireland is so unsatisfactory, I withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MARKEY v. EARL OF GOSFORD.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to
628
the answer they gave to the Motion of Friday last for a copy of the proceedings and evidence in the case of Markey v. Earl of Gosford, and what the facts are? It may be in the recollection of some noble Lords that I moved on Friday last for a Return containing a copy of the official shorthand writer's notes of the proceedings and evidence in the case of Markey v. Earl of Gosford, before the Irish Land Commission. The noble Earl who replied on behalf of the Government [the Earl of Denbigh] said the evidence was fully and carefully stated in the judgments so far as was necessary for a decision, and upon that I withdrew my Motion. I then obtained a copy of the Irish Law Times Reports, and referred to the judgments in the case of Markey v. Earl of Gosford, wit a the hope of finding in them, the evidence and the other particulars I had asked for. I hold those judgments in my hand at the present moment. I have read them through twice very carefully, and have spoken to others who have read them, but we all agree that there is no reference at all in them to the evidence that was given in the case. So far as I can see there is not one single word of the evidence in these judgments. I admit that there are opinions based on the evidence, but I asked for a copy of the evidence. It was communicated to me from Ireland that the case had not been dealt with according to the wishes of those on behalf of whom I was moving; that is to say, they complained that the details of the case—the evidence—had not been brought out in the judgments, nor in this House; and I understand that the answer which was given by the noble Earl [the Earl of Denbigh] the other evening does not meet the case. I therefore, my Lords, venture to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the answer they gave to my Motion on Friday last, and what the facts are?
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, the noble Viscount asks me to tell him what the facts of the case are. I am afraid it is rather a large order to expect me to go into the decision which was given by a legal tribunal, and which was not appealed against, in regard to this case; and I submit that it is not compe-

629
tent for your Lordships to discuss this matter in that way. With regard to the answer I gave the other day, I then said that the evidence was fully and carefully stated, "so far as was necessary. "The noble Viscount will mark the qualifying phrase I used—"so far as was necessary. "I am afraid he considers that considerably more was necessary than was actually stated. I only gave him the answer of the Law Officers of the Irish Government. I did not in any way mean to infer that the evidence was directly quoted in the judgments. The question in this case is practically one of law, and I have only to say that so far as it was necessary for the consideration of that question, the matter was dealt with in the judgments, which, as the noble Viscount is aware, are reported at length.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I do not know whether I am entitled to make any remark upon the reply of the noble Earl, but he said on Friday that the evidence was fully and carefully stated in the judgments. I ask him to show me where in the judgments the evidence is stated.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I said "as far as was necessary."
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: We cannot discover a shred of evidence there.
House adjourned at 5.5.