Lords Sitting of 25 June 1908

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Tyne Improvement.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Ards and Bangor Railways Bill—(Petition for additional Provision).—Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Wednesday next.
River Wandle Protection Bill [H.L.].—Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
North East London Railway Bill; Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill.—Read 3a, and passed.
Honourable Artillery Company Bill [H.L.]; Tollemache Estate Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Draycott Gas Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Orders Conformation (London) Bill [H.L.]—(No. 1 Order); Post Office Sites Bill [H.L.]; Doncaster Corporation Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]—Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lord Zouche of Haryngworth and the Lord Wynford be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of Lord Leigh and Lord Lochee; read, and agreed to.
London and District Electricity Supply Bill [ILL.], London Electric Supply Bill

3
[H.L.], London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill [H.L.].—Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over To-morrow.
Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill.—Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Denman for the Lord Herschell), and reported from the Committee. (No. 111.)
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1.) Bill, Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2.) Bill, Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3.) Bill [H.L.], Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.].—Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a (according to order); An Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 16. (1908.)
  Agreement between the United Kingdom and Spain amending Article 5 of the Agreement of 25th November, 1875, respecting the Postal Service between Gibraltar and Spain; signed at Madrid, 9th April, 1908.

  TRADE REPORT ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 4013. Japan (Dairen (Dalney)); No. 4015. China (Hankow); No. 4043. United States (Consular District of Philadelphia); No. 4044. Hayti (Republics of Hayti and Santo Domingo); No. 4045. Spain (Consular District of Seville); No. 4046. France (Pondicherry and Karikal); No. 4047. Spain (Canary Islands); No. 4048. Italy (Province of Lecce).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  List of all pensions granted during the year ended 31st March, 1908, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Civil List Act, 1901.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Order made by the Leyton Urban District Council, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the urban district.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1902.
  Report by the Board of Trade respecting the applications to and proceedings of the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1902, during the past year.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE EARL OF MAYO: There are well-founded rumours, my Lords, that this Bill is to be read a second time. I, therefore, cannot acquiesce in silence in that Reading of this amending Bill, which, I now understand, will be accepted by the House. It is an instance of political vituperation to which we are accustomed in Ireland. We may, however, congratulate ourselves on the fact that the Bill has not been introduced in another place; as a consequence, the landowners and planter tenants with whom it deals will not be subject to the abuse which usually emanates from a certain party in that place who are adepts in that manner of speaking.
  In Ireland we know that the Bill is introduced in consequence of a decision of the Court of Appeal with reference to the powers of the Estates Commissioners under the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907. The appellant in the case was Lord Clanricarde, and the Estates Commissioners were the respondents. Three questions

  5
  were put before the Court, the most important of which was—
  "Are he Estates Commissioners debarred from acquiring the said lands under the provisions of the Evicted Tenants, Act on the grounds that the lands are tenanted lands and in 'occupation of a bona fide tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer in accordance with proper methods of husbandry?"
  The last words are taken from the Act itself. The answer was in the affirmative, and the appellant won his case. Therefore your Lordships will understand that the Bill is aimed at Lord Clanricarde and his planter tenants. I may compare it for a moment to a wasp; it has a sting in it which is meant to stick in its victim. We are told that when a wasp stings it flies away and dies; but this is a more venomous insect, for its sting affects all owners and all planter tenants in Ireland.
  As this is an amending Act, I ask your Lordships to consider, for a moment, the Act it amends, and what was said by the noble Earl who leads the House when introducing the Act of last year. The noble Earl then said—
  "This measure, as we fully admit, is only very partially economic and is mainly political."
  I think that is perfectly true. Two great questions with regard to Ireland have been decided upon and legislated upon—first, the reinstatement of evicted tenants; and, secondly, the protection of planter tenants. The question of the reinstatement of evicted tenants, I may remind your Lordships, originally arose in definite form in Clause 15 of the Irish Land Conference Report, in which it was stated that—
  "Any project for the solution of the Irish Land question should be accompanied by a settlement of the evicted tenants question upon an equitable basis."
  Clauses 2 and 3 of the Act of 1903 deal with those tenants, but the machinery of that Act regarding evicted tenants did not run, in the opinion of the present Government, quickly enough, and the Evicted Tenants Bill of last year was passed.
  The debates on the matter are fresh in your Lordships' memory. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, in moving
  6
  the Second Reading of the Bill of 1907, said—
  "I need not quote any of the statements of Mr. Wyndham to that effect. They have been quoted in this House before—
  The noble Earl was refering to the actual merits of the particular evicted tenants. He went on—
  "But your Lordships will remember that he used in this connection the phrase that bygones ought to be bygones, and that it was not wise to stop to inquire from what reason and under what circumstances the evicted, tenants had lost their holdings."
  The noble Earl disposed of the matter in that graceful manner which one cannot help admiring, though not always agreeing with. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition hit the right nail on the head when he said—
  "We are told—I think the noble Earl used the expression—that bygones should be bygones."
  Lord Crewe here interrupted the noble Marquess by saying that he had quoted Mr. Wyndham's expression. The noble Marquess continued—
  "I will take it either from the noble Earl or from Mr. Wyndham. It is a good expression. I should like bygones to be bygones, but I want to know a little about some of the bygones with which you are going to deal under this Bill."
  I have found a quotation which can be aptly applied to this measure. I give it to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill for what it is worth—
  "As we have a conceit of motion coming, as well as bygones; so have we of time which dependeth thereon."
  The Government, I know, are anxious about the Bill, and desire to get it through quickly.
  Now, what are the bygones on the Clanricarde estate? I have heard much regarding them, and have at last ascertained some actual facts. This estate was one of the lowest rented properties in Ireland. At the time of the passing of the Land Act of 1881 the rental was £23,350; it is now £19,000—a reduction of only 16 per cent., which covers voluntary reductions as well as Land Court reductions. The average reduction throughout Ireland by the operation of the 1881 Land Act and the fixing of fair rent for second term was nearly 40 per cent. This is taken from statistics published by the Land Commission.

  7
  On this estate, rents being low, many tenants declined, and many still decline, to make use of the Land Court. In 1886 the Plan of Campaign was started on this estate. A great number of tenants refused to pay rent, not because they could not, but for other reasons. Two hundred were evicted for non-payment of rent under the Plan of Campaign. But before proceedings were taken, these tenants were offered 20 per cent. abatement on the current year, and anyone who paid one half year's rent was given time. Three hundred tenants on the estate paid on these conditions; sixty-three evicted tenants applied for reinstatement and were accepted, and 140 refused to come in. The owner naturally had to look elsewhere to let these farms and he let them to a number of bona-fide agricultural tenants, who are now called planters. A sum of £2,000, at least, was expended by the owner, and the new or planter tenants, it is said, spent at least £2,000 more. These planter tenants for many years carried on their business in a satisfactory manner, and good relations existed between them and the other tenants. So much for the past.
  Let us now come to the present. The evicted tenants question was dealt with pretty fully in the Act of last year which is now upon the Statute-book. It became law on 28th August, 1907. The planter tenants on this estate were singled out by agitators and boycotted. The shop-keepers, as is usual in some parts of Ireland, refused to sell them the necessaries of life, and the labourers were circularised not to work for them. Yet we were told that we must pass that Bill in order to heal differences! On 6th October a public meeting was held at Portumna. The chairman was the Rev. Joseph Corcoran, the parish priest, and, to his credit, he deprecated boycotting. But, notwithstanding that, Mr. John Redmond, the leader of the Nationalist Party, spoke these words—
  "I am surprised to hear that any one of them (the planters) would be unwilling to go; and if there is found anyone who is not to go with compensation, that fault will be entirely with the people, and it is absurd to think there can be any peace in the district. I am quite sure the majority of them will agree to go, but whether they agree to go or do not agree, they have to go, and if they do not go it would be absurd for any man to hope that peace could be maintained in that district.
  8
  If they refuse to go, here, at any rate, the land war will go on, and, indeed, I have no hesitation in saying that, under these circumstances, if there is refusal on their part peace in this district would be a dishonour to Ireland."
  That is taken from the report of Mr. Redmond's speech which appeared in the Freeman's Journal on 7th October last year.
  Naturally, after this, the planter tenants were bullied and put under pressure. They were coerced into giving consent to the Estates Commissioners to quit their holdings; they were strictly boycotted and were also promised by the Estates Commissioners substantial sums to go. Under pressure twenty-one signed consent to go, and this was the real cause of the proceedings in the Irish Courts. On 6th June of this year twenty-one tenants signed saying that they withdrew their consent to go. The paper runs thus—
  "We regret that some of us last year weakly signed papers put hastily before us and under pressure of a threatened impending boycot and with promises of large sums as purchase of our holdings. We declare we withdraw such agreements and refuse to break up our homes."
  I have every reason to believe that since then six or more of these twenty-one tenants have withdrawn from the declaration. That is the whole story of the Clanri-carde estate. I am not going to make comment upon it whatever. I leave the House to draw its own conclusions. I ask your Lordships whether I was not right when I said that this measure was an instance of political vituperation. If there is anything which shows what political vituperation in Ireland is, it is contained in the speeches of Mr. Redmond. The object of this Bill is to crush Lord Clanricardo and to hit those planter tenants whom Lord Robertson's Amendment last year was designed to protect. They are hit by this Bill through the owner of the property.
  I frankly say that I should much like to move the rejection of this Bill; but I know that the two front benches are against me, and before such strength and ability I must bow. But I would submit to your Lordships that, while nominally permissive, this Bill will subject every planter tenant to irresistible pressure to sell his interest; it will result in evicted tenants being restored as purchasers

  9
  to rented land at prices which would certainly be set up as the standard price which the owner ought to accept from his other tenants. My Lords, I think we have reached the "last phase," or nearly the last phase, of the agrarian agitation and its attendant troubles in Ireland. But when the historian sets down the tale of agrarian agitation and agrarian legislation in that country, when political rancour has been forgotton, has passed away, and is stilled, what must he say of this measure? A landlord, a member of your Lordships' House, sought to protect his planter tenants and his own interests. He appealed to the highest Court in his own country, and that Court granted his appeal. Thirteen days after a Bill was introduced to reverse that decision, and shortly afterwards the House of Lords passed the Second Reading of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, as I have on more than one occasion interested myself particularly in the question which we are debating, and as the noble Earl who leads the House referred the other evening very pointedly to some observations that had fallen from me last year, I may, perhaps, be permitted, before the discussion goes further, to offer your Lordships a few observations upon the Government Bill. I should like, in the first place, to make this preliminary remark. Let us remember that we are not to-night discussing the Evicted Tenants Act which was passed last year. That Act is a part of the law of the land. We accepted it with great reluctance. We made no secret of our objection to the principles which it embodied, but we accepted it, to the best of my belief, for one reason, and for one reason only—because His Majesty's Government represented to us very earnestly indeed that, in their view, the measure formed an integral part of a policy of pacification which they desired to bring about in Ireland, and that, if we took upon ourselves to reject that particular item in their programme of pacification, that programme was destined to failure.
  It was upon those representations, and upon the strength of those representations only, that this House agreed to pass the Evicted Tenants Bill. But we made one important Amendment in it.
  10
  We determined that, whatever hardship might arise to the landlords, whatever violation of principle might be involved by the provisions of the measure, we would make, at least, an effort to protect that particular class of tenant whom we have always described as planter tenants, and not all of those tenants but only such of them as were firmly established in their new holdings, and were treating their land in accordance with the methods of good husbandry.
  The only question really before us tonight is, I conceive, this—Did we by the terms of our Amendment go beyond the necessities of the case and beyond the intentions of your Lordships' Houses? Your Lordships are aware of the interpretation which has been put by the Court of Appeal upon the proviso which we inserted in subsection 3, and, of course, I assume—I think, indeed, it is obvious—that the interpretation of the Court of Appeal is a correct interpretation. We now learn accordingly that the effect of our proviso was not merely to protect the tenant, but to protect the holding from the operation of the compulsory powers which the Act conferred. The result of that is this, that the Act cannot be set in motion against a particular holding unless the consent not only of the tenant but of the landlord also has been obtained. The question I have to ask your Lordships is this—Was that our intention when we adopted Lord Robertson's Amendment last year? The noble and learned Lord will, I daresay, presently tell us what his own view was.
  For myself I answer unhesitatingly that it was in my view our purpose not to protect the landlord, but to protect the tenant: and the words which the noble Earl who leads the House quoted the other evening are, I am bound to say, conclusive so far as I am concerned. I endeavoured to show that the number of planters to whom the proviso would apply was a comparatively small number, and I said this—
  "The caretakers, the nondescripts, the birds of passage, will not be protected under the terms of our Amendment. Then there are other of these planter tenants who, no doubt, will be perfectly willing to move elsewhere under the liberal inducements which are to be offered to them. Those men are willing to go and need not be considered."

  11
  I could not have expressed my own views in more precise language, and I do not think at the time I was challenged by any of those who were listening to me.
  Well, my Lords, are there any reasons why this House should now insist upon a view which, as I conceive, would be entirely different from the view which we entertained last year? I have heard it said that it is a grievous injustice to the landlords of these planter tenants that they should be liable to have a planter tenant removed, and a restored tenant put in his place, and put there under conditions which would render his position infinitely superior to that of the ordinary tenants who are his neighbours. That is perfectly true; but it is a grievance which arises under the Evicted Tenants Act. It is a grievance which arises, for example, in the very much stronger case where the evicted tenant is restored, not on land occupied by another tenant, but whore he is replaced upon a farm carved out of the un-tenanted land in the landlord's own occupation—land which belongs absolutely to the landlord, and in the case of which he holds not only the interest of the landlord but the interest of the tenant also. I say that if we have swallowed such a camel as that I do not see how we can strain at the gnat which is embodied in the Bill on the Table.
  Then with regard to the hardship which the Bill might occasion to the tenants. My noble friend who spoke just now with much earnestness upon the subject of the Bill pointed out that many of these tenants, although they might profess readiness to go elsewhere, would really not be completely free agents in the matter. He pointed out that bribery and intimidation would probably be used without scruple, and that men who were subject to such influences required that additional support which they might expect from the concurrence of the landlord. But, my Lords, although I am quite sure that my noble friend is right when he tells the House that these men will be subjected to great pressure of different kinds, I do not see how this House can take upon itself to go into the motives by which the tenant is inspired when he gives his consent to the process of removal. You may suspect—you may
  12
  more than suspect—that influences of this kind have been at work; but, after all, if the tenant wants to go, I do not see what you have to gain by trying to force him to stay. I am almost tempted to suggest that a tenant might, in a case of that kind, find a very simple way of defeating the proviso of last year. If pressure had been put upon him successfully and he really wanted to accept the bribe offered to him to go elsewhere, he might cease to cultivate his land in a proper and husbandlike manner, and thereupon at once his holding would cease to come within the scope of the proviso.
  The real question is, do the tenants in question, whatever their inner motives may be, want to give up their farms or not? As to that, I am in possession of a piece of evidence which I think it is my duty to lay before the House. I have received within the last few days a letter from the gentleman to whom my noble friend referred—the Rev. Mr. Corcoran, of Portumna, county Galway, from which I should like to read a few words to the House. He begins by saying—
  "I have no motive in the matter but the peace of the district, which is more or less disturbed for the last twenty years owing to the unfortunate evictions on the above estate, but now I hope there are signs of peace and that the Estates Commissioners will be enabled to carry out their arrangements. All the planters are willing to go; in a couple of cases it is only a matter of compensation"—
  He means it is only a question of the amount of compensation they will receive—
  "I appeal, then, to your Lordship as a priest and a lover of peace to do all in your power to end this crying grievance by restoring the evicted tenants without any hardship or injustice to landlord, tenant, or planter. The few letters attached show it is only a matter of compensation with the planters. And, as your Lordship knows, the matter would be settled long since if the landlord consented."
  He encloses with this letter a memorial addressed to myself, which runs as follows—
  "We, the undersigned new tenants on the Clanricarde Estate, county Galway, do most respectfully ask Lord Lansdowne to use his great influence in passing into law the amending clause to the Evicted Tenants Bill introduced by Lord Crewe into the House of Lords, and thus enable us to carry out our arrangements with the Estates Commissioners, viz., to take reasonable compensation or farms of land elsewhere as good as what we now hold. We wish to add that in making those arrangements we were entirely free."

  13
  Here follow sixteen signatures, and the petition concludes with the postcript—
  "The above represent practically all the planter tenants. A few others were to call and sign, but time presses."
  The document is dated June 12th, and it is, therefore, I conceive, the most recent document of the series, because I have no doubt my noble friend was right in saying that these unfortunate people have hesitated a good deal, and perhaps have, in some cases, changed their mind more than once. That seems to be really the case for the Government Bill, and it appears to me to be a case which we on this side of the House should not be well advised to withstand.
  I will only notice one other argument, and I think it was used also by my noble friend behind me. What he suggested to your Lordships was something of this kind—that there had been a kind of compact over this matter, and that because the Nationalist Party had disregarded the terms of that compact and had not allowed bygones to be bygones, but had threatened and intimidated these particular farmers, we were therefore free to reconsider our position and to deal with it in a spirit different from that in which we might have approached it last year. All that I can say in regard to that is that I should be very sorry if this House were to deal with a proposal of this kind in a spirit of retaliation. If it is true, and I am afraid it is true, that the other side have not fulfilled the undertaking they gave to the public that bygones should be bygones, I trust that, at any rate, the House of Lords will scrupulously fulfil the arrangement to which it was a party last year, and for these reasons I shall give my support to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, there is no doubt, as the noble Marquess has said, that the Amendment which your Lordships inserted in the Evicted Tenants Bill last year, on the Motion of Lord Robertson, was intended solely for the protection of the planter who was a bona-fide farmer, and who wished to remain on the land, and that those who were prepared to accept the inducements offered, and leave, need not be considered, as it might be assumed they were going willingly. Later on in the year it
  14
  was remarked to me from several quarters that we had omitted to take into consideration the existing state of the country, and that the agitation which was then advancing, owing to the very feeble efforts made by His Majesty's Government to check it, was making such headway that it would be exceedingly doubtful whether anyone giving up his land was doing so of his own free will. Now, in many parts of Ireland, free will has entirely ceased to exist as regards anything connected with land. A man cannot buy or sell, let or hire, according to his own free will; he must follow the dictates of the party of agitation. Therefore it is idle to attach any importance to the stipulation in this Bill with regard to the written consent of the tenant. A written consent is worth absolutely nothing if it is given by a man with a pistol at his head; and this is not a mere figure of speech, it may represent an actual fact. That extreme pressure will be exorcised is, I think, clear from the words used by Mr. Redmond at Portumna, when he said that peace in that district would be a dishonour to Ireland. I dislike the Bill, just as I objected strongly to the Act of last year, for I regard it as not only unjust to the landlord, but opposed to all principles of public morality that a man who has joined an illegal and immoral conspiracy, and lost his farm in consequence, should not only be reinstated in it but placed in a more favourable position than he formerly occupied. For the purchase instalment which he will have to pay is less than his former rent. But the principle was accepted last year by your Lordships' House and there is no question, therefore, of opposing the Second Reading. I hope, however, that some Amendment will be introduced in Committee to make sure that the written consent of the tenant is not an idle form.
  LORD ROBERTSON: My Lords, as I took some part in the debate last year, it may be right that I should say a few words. I have examined this Bill in a critical, and, perhaps I may say, a, sceptical spirit, and having done so, I am bound to say that I think it is not merely consistent with what was done last year, but it carries out what was done last year. Therefore I add my advice to my noble friends from Ireland, with whose

  15
  general politics I so thoroughly sympathise, that this Second Reading should be given.
  What we contended for last year was individual freedom, not the less because it was the freedom of brave men. Our cause was the liberty of the individual to choose to go or to stay. We desired to protect, and we did protect, those who desired to stay, We are asked to-night merely to give effect to the wish of those who desire to go, and it seems to me that we should be defeating our own principle if, merely from anticipating dangers in the district, we did not assent to what is a manifest and plain proposition of justice. We have been told that consent in this part of the country is not consent. I daresay that, to a certain extent, there is some truth in that. On the other hand, we are asked by the responsible Government to pass a Bill which speaks of the written consent of the person concerned. The alternative suggested is that we should supersede this individual and require the consent of a third party, who was not in our consideration at all during the debates last year. That I decline to do, and I decline to do so although I have my conjecture that there may be abuse of this provision.
  But I make this appeal to His Majesty's Government. We are about to pass a Bill which, in its provision with reference to a man's consent in writing, uses the language of civilised legislation; and we have a right to ask that the Government should provide civilised administration. Accordingly, I hope it will be borne in mind, from this moment onwards, that in passing this measure we take the Government as giving us a pledge that, as the Legislature speaks to them in the language of civilised legislation, they will reply in the language of civilised administration. One word more. I suppose it may be assumed that in one way or another many of those planters will go. I hope some of them will stay. But, even supposing many of them do go, I do not think this House has any reason to regret this chapter of legislation. These were brave men who stood to their guns in bad times. We have recognised that stoutness and valour of that kind is a thing to be kept in view by this branch of Legislature, at all events, when we are considering questions of this kind; and I
  16
  believe that our action to-night, in passing the Second Reading of this Bill, will merely confirm the conviction that the House of Lords may be relied upon to stand by the principle of individual freedom, whether for good or for evil.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, with one observation which fell from the noble Earl who initiated this discussion we shall all be in cordial agreement. I refer to his statement that political vituperation was not altogether unknown in Ireland. We have many of us been the subject of it in our time, and I do not know that we are to any great extent the worse. But when the noble Earl speaks of this Bill as an instance of political vituperation, I must say I never saw a Bill drawn in more calm and peaceable terms; and I think, in fact, that what he meant was something a little different. What he intended to convey, and no doubt it was true, was that this Bill was intended to deal with a particular state of things which has arisen in regard to a particular individual.
  I do not propose to follow the noble Earl into the history of the Clanricarde estate. The rent statistics of that estate are not really relevant to this particular purpose, nor is the whole management of that estate. What we really have to consider is how far this Bill carries out the intentions of your Lordships' House as expressed in the Act of last year. The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition and the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down stated, in the fullest and most candid manner, that in their opinion the intention of the Amendment, inserted on the motion of Lord Robertson, with regard to the bona-fide tenant is carried out in the Bill which I am asking your Lordships to read a second time. It is, I think, common ground that the intention of that Amendment was to do what we all wish to do—to protect the tenant who, for some purpose of his own, desired to remain, provided that he was a genuine and bona-fide farmer; but it was not intended to give the landlord or anybody else a veto upon his departure on terms, supposing he found those terms acceptable.
  More than that, it is not only a question of the landlord's consent, but the

  17
  judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ireland absolutely strikes these holdings out of the purview of the Act altogether; and it appears to me that it would be open to anybody, not merely to the land lord, to object to any bona fide farmer coming under this particular clause—a result absolutely foreign to the intention of your Lordships' House. Lord Mayo stated that very strong pressure has been placed upon these planter tenants to go, and he spoke of them as having been boycotted. I do not know what warrant the noble Earl has for that statement. I do not think it is accurate to state that those tenants have appeared in the boycotting returns, but, at any rate, as far as the evicted tenants are concerned, I am given to understand that they have behaved with the utmost patience and in a perfectly law-abiding manner, and have not attempted to interfere with those at present occupying the farms. I think I ought to state in regard to the action of the Government in this matter, that this particular result was to some extent foreseen last year by the Chief Secretary when the matter was being discussed in the House of Commons. He said that he saw great difficulty in accepting the clause as it went down from your Lordships' House very much on the grounds which the Court of Appeal have since taken. He, I think, foresaw, although probably not to the fullest extent, that this very question might be raised, and that it was possible that a Court of law would interpret the terms of the clause in the manner in which it ultimately did.
  I have now only to thank your Lordships for the manner in which you have received this Bill. Nothing, if I may venture to say so, could have been more absolutely candid than the speeches which have been made with regard to it, and I quite admit, as the noble Lord who has just sat down observed, that the fact that your Lordships are prepared to pass the Second Reading of this measure will be taken as showing that you are anxious to carry out that peaceful policy in which we consider the Evicted Tenants Act of last year to play a considerable part. The noble and learned Lord said he hoped that we, in our turn, would adopt methods of civilised administration. My Lords, it is the absolute desire of
  18
  my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary to administer the law fairly. Everybody knows who has had anything to do with Ireland that there are certain forms of illegality there with which it is extremely difficult to deal by law. Everybody who has bad to do with the administration of Ireland knows that there are forms of boycotting which, I will not say it is impossible, but on the very verge of impossible, to check by the operations of any Act of Parliament; but I am quite certain that my right hon. friend desires to do everything he can to keep those parts of Ireland—not a very wide area—which are in a disturbed condition, as peaceful as he can by all possible methods, relying, as we have said, as long as he can, and if possible always, on the operations of the ordinary law.
  On question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I need not assure the House that I have not the least intention of raising any question with regard to the Act passed last year. It has only been in operation for about two months, and any question of amendment or increased power, or anything of that kind, could only be considered after much longer experience. All I will say with regard to that Act is, and I am sure my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will agree with me, that His Majesty's Judges are doing their utmost to make it a practical Act, and to work it in a way which will strengthen the criminal law. It is in order that we may get as far as possible perfect equipment for that Act that I have found it necessary to ask your Lordships to allow this Bill to have a Second Reading.
  This Bill deals with two practical points only. The Act of last year, for reasons which commended themselves to somebody—I really do not know

  19
  to whom—did not allow all the Judges of the King's Bench Division to be Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I do not know, and I do not wish to inquire, what the reasons for that restriction were. Since then a Committee has been sitting at the instance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and has resulted in the Judges of the King's Bench Division devising a circuit scheme which will enable ten Judges to be continuously in London. The matter is difficult to arrange, but I hope the scheme will work. It will come into operation on 12th October. In consequence, the difficulty of providing for the Court of Criminal Appeal will be accentuated. The new circuit scheme could not be worked if the number of Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal is limited to eight besides myself. I, therefore, find it absolutely necessary to ask your Lordships to increase the number of Judges of that Court. I see no reason for drawing any distinction in the matter, and, therefore, the first clause in this Bill provides that all the Judges of the King's Bench Division shall be Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal. Of course, the selection of the Judges who are to sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal must rest with the Lord Chief Justice for the time being. The responsibility is, and must be, his. I think I have given sufficient justification for the first clause in the Bill.
  By the second section of the Act of last year the registrar is chosen from one of the Masters of the King's Bench Division. At the present time the work is being admirably done by the Master of the Crown Office, but there is no choice, if it became necessary to appoint a new registrar, outside the ranks of the Masters of the King's Bench Division. I have received a memorial from the Masters as to the impossibility of their doing this additional work. That, however, is not my real reason for dealing-with this matter, because, of course, they must do the work if it is put upon them. My real reason is that I think it is most important that the registrar should be a man skilled in criminal law. The Bill therefore proposes, in Clause 2, subsection (1), to give power to appoint, in the case of any future
  20
  appointment, a barrister versed in the criminal law.
  Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 involves no principle at all. It is that a deputy registrar should be appointed. At present no deputy registrar is authorised by the Statute. Work arising under the Act will have to be done in the long vacation, and it will be absolutely necessary that there should be someone in the office to discharge the duties of the registrar. The Lord Chancellor has already appointed the staff, and it includes a gentleman who has the qualification of a practising barrister of not less than seven years standing, and who is quite competent to discharge the duties. All I desire under this subsection is to give power for a member of the staff already appointed to be allowed to act as assistant registrar. My only aim and object in bringing the Bill forward is to make the body, both judicial and administrative, that has to deal with this Act as efficient as it can be made.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Alverstone.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I desire to deal quite shortly with the subject of the Second Reading of this Bill. The House will remember that the Criminal Appeal Act had its origin in this House in the year 1906. The following year it was passed by the House of Commons and became law, the proposals being somewhat varied in the second Bill from what they were in the first. In fact, I do not think the differences of opinion were altogether coterminous with party connections; but there were differences of opinion, and they ultimately resulted in compromise. I have no wish to offer any objection to the Bill submitted to vour Lordships to-day by the Lord Chief Justice, although, of course, when it roaches the House of Commons, it may, if it can be considered, encounter the same various currents of opinion as the Bill of last year and which resulted in the compromise now on the Statute-book.
  I would remind the House that the proposal that all the Judges of the King's Bench Division should be Judges of the

  21
  Court of Criminal Appeal was contained in my original Bill in 1906, but the House of Commons for reasons which we need not speculate upon, objected to all the Judges being members of this Court. If they change their view, I shall not in the least deprecate the change. With regard to future appointments to the office of registrar, I will only say that there is now a very competent registrar, who, I hope, will perform the work for many years to come. With regard to my noble and learned friend's third proposal, the Act says that the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury may provide such assistance as is required. I have provided all the assistance that has been necessary up to the present, and whatever further is required I am prepared, of course, to provide. I think, however, that it is very likely that the House of Commons will be of opinion that if any fresh appointments are made they ought to be made with the sanction of the Treasury and on the responsibility of a Minister answerable to Parliament.
  For my own part I should be most happy to be divested of any patronage attaching to my office. I find it by no means the most agreeable portion of my duties. But experience has shown it to be right that those in whom the appointment resides ought to be persons in a Ministerial position responsible to Parliament. Accordingly I suspect that objections will be raised to my noble and learned friend's proposal. At the same time, I desire to recognise the anxiety of my noble and learned friend to make the Act work well, and I should regard myself as most ungrateful if I endeavoured to put any obstacle in the way of any proposals my noble and learned friend made.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, although there is likely to be no opposition to this Bill I would like to say a few words with regard to the position of the Court of Criminal Appeal. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has said that the time has scarcely come for judging of the working of the Act, as only a few months have elapsed since it came into operation. I think, on the other hand, that sufficient time has elapsed to allow of our taking stock of the working of this Act.
  22
  When, some forty years ago, I made proposals in the hope of obtaining a Court of Criminal Appeal it was prophesied that it would be impossible to create and maintain such a Court in this country, that there would be a glut of appeals, that many Judges would have to be appointed to administer it, that it would frustrate rather than support the acquittal of innocent people, and that nothing but evil would result. Such prophecies were uttered in both Houses of Parliament; they were even uttered by Judges on the Bench. I now claim, as one who has always had the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal at heart, that the experience we have had of its working has proved all those prophecies to be unsound. In the first place, the Act was drawn with singular wisdom and moderation in respect of all matters to which it referred.
  I think the country is much indebted to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for the part he has taken in devising and passing so complete an Act. My noble and learned friend has in this instance given proof of the great advantage in the administration of the law which is being derived from his occupying his present high position, and how important it is to the public that he should continue to occupy that position. I give that praise because I think it is especially due. The Act has, with the able assistance of the Lord Chief Justice, been wisely administered, and the Judges have set themselves anxiously to the work cast upon them. They have discouraged appeals which ought not to have been made; they have shown that an appellant may have something to lose as well as something to gain, and the consequence has been that there has not arisen any approach to a stoppage in the administration of justice in consequence of these appeals. There has been, on the other hand, a certain knowledge conveyed to the public that justice will be truly administered in this country, and that for the future there is no fear of an innocent man receiving punishment.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASE FUND.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I rise, in accordance with the notice standing in my name on the Paper, to ask His Majesty's Government for the following information respecting claims upon and payments out of the Irish Land Purchase Fund as at 31st May, 1908: (1) What was the total amount of the applications for advances and other claims upon the fund. (2) How much had been paid out of the Fund: (a) Into the hank to await clearing of title, etc.; (b) Into the Land Judge's Court; (c) To the Congested Districts Board. (3) How much had been allocated and distributed to the parties entitled to receive same. I desire to further ask His Majesty's Government: (4) What was the amount of guaranteed 2¾ per cent. stock issued under the Irish Land Act, 1903, down to 31st May, 1908. (5) What was the amount of the cash obtained for same. (6) What was the amount of such stock and cash respectively allotted to the Land Purchase Aid ("Bonus") Fund. (7) What was the amount standing to credit of the Irish Land Purchase Fund at 31st May, 1908, and available towards meeting outstanding and future applications for advances and other claims upon the fund. (8) Does the figure of £175,450, in paragraph 45 of the Report of the Departmental Committee of the Treasury [Cd. 4005.]. include the estimated cost of administering the Irish "Fair Rent" Acts in 1907–1908; if not, how much should be added to the estimate to include the cost of administering those Acts.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I can give the noble Earl most, if not all, of the information he desires up to 31st May, 1908. The answers to his Questions are—(1) The amount of applications for advances and the estimated amounts required for the purchase of estates and land were altogether £62,742,660. (2) (a) The total amount, in respect of advances made by the Estates Commissioners, paid out of the fund into bank to await distribution by a Judicial Commissioner (clearing of title) was £20,404,257; (b) the amount paid under Section 7 of the Act of 1903 into the Land Judge's Court was £972,422;
  24
  (c) for purchases by the Congested Districts Board under Sections 72 and 79, the sum of £1,109,819 was advanced; (2) for estates purchased by the Congested Districts Board from the Land Judge, the sum of £94,489 was advanced. (3) The sum of £19,088,158 has been distributed by a Judicial Commissioner; and, in addition, sums amounting to £2,496,500 have been advanced, some of which is distributable by the Land Judge, some by a Land Commissioner other than the Judicial Commissioner, and some does not require an order for distribution. (4) The amount of guaranteed 2¾ per cent. stock issued to 31st May was £28,201,444. (5) This amount produced in cash £24,862,297. (6) The amount of stock allotted to the Land Purchase Aid Fund was £2,651,440, equivalent to £2,332,760 cash. (7) Since 18th May, the cash required for advances has been supplied by temporary borrowings from the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt from time to time as the money is needed. On 31st May the amount thus borrowed for the Land Purchase Fund amounted to £240,000. (8) The figure £175,450, quoted from Paragraph 45 of the Committee's Report, is the total estimated cost of the Land Commission for the year 1907–1908 (less the charge for bonus and the extra receipts), and therefore includes the estimated cost of administering the Fair Rent Acts. I hope that gives the noble Earl most of the information he requires.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, and I wish to thank him and the Irish Office for the trouble they have taken in getting out the figures so expeditiously.

  LOCAL TAXATION.
  Order of the Day read for resuming the debate on the Motion of the Earl of Onslow for Papers respecting the additional duties imposed by Parliament during recent years upon local authorities, and to the increased burdens thereby thrown upon urban and rural rates and upon the members and officials of county and other councils.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Viscount WOLVER-HAMPTON): My Lords, I think that everyone who has taken any interest in our local taxation must feel indebted to the noble Earl the Lord Chairman for having brought this matter before your Lordship's House and in that way before the public. The present state of the relations between Imperial and local taxation I think may be described as chaotic. From time to time emergencies have arisen in the administration of local affairs, and, no system having been laid down or pursued in regard to local rating, local expenditure methods have grown up which are illogical and extravagant.
  Twelve years ago the Government of the day came to the conclusion that the time had arrived for a complete investigation of the whole question of local expenditure and its relation to Imperial contributions to be undertaken by a Royal Commission. That Commission was selected with judgment and wisdom. I do not think it would have been possible for a Commission to have been constituted, at all events in the then condition of public business, more competent to investigate thoroughly the whole question of local taxation and the best method of dealing with it. As your Lordships have been reminded, the Commission was placed under the able and competent chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh; and that Commission, having sat for five years and made an exhaustive survey of the whole field of local administration and taxation, presented in 1901 a Report—in its main points a unanimous Report—distinguished by the fairness and justice with which it dealt with a question full of difficulties and complications.
  Now in 1908 the question has been again raised. The noble Viscount opposite, Lord St. Aldwyn, referred to the difficulties which necessarily surrounded the late Government in regard to finance, and said they did not feel justified in dealing with the matter in the interval which ensued between the presentation of the Report and the time when they left office. I cannot pass from that Report without remarking that, in my opinion, the Report of this Commission will remain a permanent evidence of the
  26
  extraordinary ability of the permanent civil servants of the Crown. The Report prepared by Sir George Murray and Sir Edward Hamilton is one of the most statesmanlike and judicial documents of the kind I have ever read; and no doubt whenever Government comes to deal with the subject they will attach great value to their recommendations as well as to those of other Members of that Commission. The Report of the Commission, I am sorry to say, has almost passed away from public attention. As is the case with too many Royal Commissions, the hard work of these gentlemen is interred in a huge volume of evidence of which the value is soon forgotten.
  The Lord Chairman did good service by calling attention to the subject once more. Local rates have increased, and are increasing. It is impossible for anyone to say that there is any sign of reduction in local expenditure. Viscount St. Aldwyn has suggested that the system of old-age pensions which His Majesty's Government propose to establish will tend to relieve the poor rate. I wish I could express my concurrence in that view. No doubt some alleviation will result, but it is doubtful whether that will not be counterbalanced by the additional expenditure which I see no chance of preventing. There are certain phrases at the present time about social reform, but it is inevitable that the expenditure to be met of a local character must increase with the growth of the nation; and the point to which your Lordships' attention has been called is whether the means of raising the funds which are necessary to meet that expenditure are proper and fair to all parties—whether the proper proportion is preserved between national and local services, and whether it is just that the burden of many services which are purely national should fall to the extent that it does upon the local authority. And it must be borne in mind that many of these burdens are not the result of any action on the part of the local authority, but are the outcome of the enactments of Parliament.
  There is another question, to which I attach even greater importance—the serious addition made in the local debt, the total of which at the present time is,

  27
  in round figures, £470,000,000. It is not very much behind the National Debt. It must not be forgotten that a large proportion of that debt is what the late Lord Goschen called a remunerative investment; and, although all councils have made mistakes—I believe that all Parliaments have made mistakes from time to time—on the whole the expenditure, vast as it has been, is to a considerable extent remunerative. My noble friend Lord Onslow seemed to think that the Local Government Board did not defend the interests of the ratepayers. I most respectfully differ from him in that opinion. The late Mr. Gladstone laid it down again and again that one of the main duties of that Department was to protect the ratepayers of the future. Parliament is too ready to authorise and facilitate future expenditure for which it has not got to find the necessary money. I suggest that Parliament should discourage as far as possible the practice which local authorities are inclined to adopt of asking for legislation when they ought to obtain the powers which they desire by provisional orders. By the latter method great expense would be saved, and the necessary control by the Local Government Board would be secured.
  I do not propose to submit any suggestion as to the mode in which this question should be dealt with now. I quite agree with the noble Earl the Lord Chairman as to the desirability of the Report which Lord Goschen made in 1871, and which I took up and carried on in 1893, being brought more up-to-date. There has been a great change in local administration, there has been a fuller development of local government, and there has been a more complete testing of the working of the late Lord Ritchie's great Act of 1888; and I think we could now have the facts set out in a more condensed and readable form than was the case in the Reports prepared by Lord Goschen and myself.
  I desire to make one remark with reference to the injustice of the present system of local taxation. In your Lordships' House, and by a large section of the other House, the question is often looked at too exclusively perhaps from
  28
  the agricultural point of view. I quite admit that there is a strong case in regard to the taxation of land, at all events in the case of the farmer, who often has to pay heavy rates on the rent, which is really part of the capital with which he carries on his business. But the same grievance exists in urban taxation. The shopkeeper, the man who is engaged in any large mercantile or manufacturing pursuit, is obliged to pay a large rent in order to carry on his business, and he is rated on that. But the merchant, who is perhaps making much greater profits than either the farmer or the tradesman, is exempt from local taxation altogether, except, perhaps, in respect of the bare rent of the office or warehouse in which he carries on his business. The grievance, which is confined to no one class, but extends through the whole of our local taxation system, is that the producer, the manufacturer, is really taxed on a large portion of his capital as if that capital were all income.
  There is a very strong case, too, of extravagance on the part of local authorities where they do not find the money themselves. I am satisfied that there is a danger, if any change is made in the direction of granting more public money to local authorities, of extravagance, though that might possibly be guarded against by the strict supervision of the central authority. It is impossible to make any reform in local taxation unless we have a new and uniform system of valuation. The difference between what is called the gross rental and the assessable value as it stands at present is very considerable. I think the gross rental is about 250 millions, while the assessable is about 46 millions less. The system is indefensible because we have no system at all. I hold that there should be but one assessable value for all taxation—that the valuation, for the income-tax and every other tax which is based on property should be uniform, and as near as possible to the actual figures of the case. The Government have declared their intention of dealing with the question next year, and it is time that a Government did deal with what has been a pressing demand for many years.

  29
  The keystone of the whole position is a reform of the Poor Law. The present Poor Law system is utterly out of date, and until it has been dealt with and placed upon proper and wise principles we cannot rely upon any satisfactory dealing with the question of local administration and local taxation. The Prime Minister has pledged himself to that, and he has promised that one of the first questions that will be taken in hand will be the relations between local and Imperial taxation. I recognise that it is the duty of Parliament, so far as local taxation is concerned, to remove the present crying grievance, of which all parties and all classes justly complain.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I do not think it is desirable that this debate should close without some expression of opinion on behalf of the county councils, who are deeply interested in the question of the great increase that, has been placed upon the rates by the large number of measures which have been entrusted to them to administer. Let me say at once that I lay much greater stress on what I may call the second part of Lord Onslow's resolution. I am not sure that the view which has been expressed by some speakers that county councils are so much overworked that they cannot properly undertake the duties, and will be likely to leave it to officials, is quite borne out by what I believe to be the facts; but I look with some alarm on any Act which suggests that county councils should administer duties which are outside the scope of their present work. I think the Act now before Parliament which suggests that it is the duty of county councils to collect a part of the taxes, even if that money should go to the county councils themselves, will be looked upon with very great dislike by the county councils. They have no officers to do the work, they are in no way conversant with it, and from what I am led to suppose is likely to be the sum set aside for the purpose of collecting these taxes, it seems to me wholly inadequate to recompense a body like the county council for the work they will have to do.
  As to the large increase in the rates, let me say that there is no body of men
  30
  more aware of the present state of the case than the county councils themselves. I have the honour of presiding over the executive council of the County Councils Association, and there is not a meeting when resolutions are not received from county councils dealing with the financial aspect of these new measures, and asking us to put before the Government the fact that the burdens are becoming excessive and that the ratepayers are very insistent in their demand for relief. We ourselves passed a resolution as recently as last month on the lines of the settlement suggested by the Local Taxation Commission—that national services should be paid for mainly out of national funds. That, I think, well expresses what the feeling of county councils is, with regard to the numerous matters which they have at present to administer. We have already had three deputations to Ministers of this very point during the past two or three months, and though much sympathy has been expressed at the position of the county councils, no relief has, at present, been offered.
  Although most of the speakers have referred to the increase in the rates during the last seven or eight years, the chief grievance we feel is at the large increase which was necessitated last year, and which is likely to again be rendered necessary this year, in consequence of fresh legislation. However interesting an historical account of what has taken place during the last few years may be, in a matter that touches the pocket of the ratepayers the history of to-day is very much more important; and although we have had no relief in the past, the ratepayers at all events hope that there may be some little relief in store for them at the present. Lord Fitzmaurice, who spoke with a great knowledge of local government, put his finger at once on the two main causes of complaint which the county councils have to bring before the Government—namely, the increased cost of the main roads, and of the administration of education. But here, again, no remedy was suggested by the noble Lord, except that those who complained should wait for another couple of years. But at least seven years ago it was reported by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation that the question was in an acute

  31
  stage. They stated that, owing to the large increase of traffic on the roads and their cost, the main roads should be paid for out of national funds. That was in 1901. Surely to-day the case is overwhelming in favour of additional aid being given to the county councils for the upkeep of the roads.
  The same view holds good of the increased cost of education. The rate that has to be raised for education constitutes a very heavy charge on the ratepayers. It is considerably more than double the whole of the county rate for other purposes; and it falls with excessive hardship through the fact that many of those who now have to pay the heavy education rate had their schools kept up without the payment of any rate on their part. I should like to bring the history of this question a little more up to date, and to refer particularly to the expensive administration of medical inspection. The House will remember that when that Bill was passed last year I made as strong a protest as I could, on behalf of county councils, against this charge being placed on the county authorities. We felt that it was not only likely to be a serious charge, but a charge which would be much larger in counties than in boroughs owing to the fact that the schools are more scattered. I regret to have to remember that I received very little support from either side of the House, except from among some of my noble friends who sit near me.
  But I did receive support which I thought at the time was especially valuable. Lord Goschen, in one of the last speeches which he made in your Lordships' House, said that, averse as he was to the suggestion that any further subvention—of which he did not approve in principle—should be given to local authorities, yet he thought this was a case where a subvention ought to be given to county councils, medical inspection being really a national charge which ought to be met to a considerable extent out of national funds. What is the result? We find now, after the regulations have been issued by the Local Government Board, that medical inspection is likely to be much more expensive than we thought at the time.
  32
  We had a very important deputation to Mr. McKenna, who was then President of the Board of Education, upon this matter early in the present session, and Mr. McKenna on that occasion entirely sympathised with the view put before him by the County Councils Association—that education was becoming unpopular because of the large amount that had to be raised for it on the rates. He agreed that that was a great misfortune. He went on to say that, although he could not set aside any sum this year for medical inspection, he intended making an alteration in the mode of paying the grants for education, and that would be a great benefit to the ratepayers as it would not only cover the provisions of the Education Act, but also give a substantial sum for the purpose of meeting medical inspection. I ventured to suggest that we should much prefer it if he could deal with the question at once, rather than leave it to the chance of what would be left over under the proposed Bill. His answer was that he regretted he could not there and then promise a grant to cover the immediate cost of medical inspection, but he assured the deputation that the proposals in the Bill would do far more than meet the cost of the additional requirements, and that it would be possible for them to meet their ratepayers with a substantial reduction in the rates. That was practically the only grain of comfort given us by the Government. I think Mr. Buxton said the same thing, that if this House passed the Education Bill the ratepayers would be very substantially benefited.
  What is the actual case? While largely increased grants are being given, there is a provision attached to the Education Bill—the same provision which, I think, was excised from the Bill of two years ago—which proposes to do away with the three-fourths now paid by the minor Authority in the case where a school has been built either by the school board or since, and to put the whole of that on to the general rate. As your Lordships know, in a great part of the counties the schools have been wholly built by the people in the parishes themselves. Those schools have been paid for, and the obligations in respect of them concluded.

  33
  The proposal now is that where the school board has had to raise a loan and has not been able to meet its obligations the locality shall be relieved of three-fourths of the rate and this shall be put as a burden on the rest of the county.
  What is the effect of that proposal? I have the figures for thirty-seven counties and I find, calculating the expense of the provisions of the Bill if it passes in the form in which it has been brought in and also of this transference, that the effect would be that in every one of those counties except three the rates would be very largely increased. So far from its beng a benefit to the counties and therefore an inducement to us to pass the Bill, as the matter stands it is exactly the reverse. I quite admit that the particular parishes which have these large rates will be considerably relieved, but the fact is that the general rate of the county comprising the larger area will be largely increased by the effect of these proposals. In my own county the rates will be raised more than 2½d. in the £ and that will be the effect, as far as we can see, of provisions which we are told will be of real benefit to the ratepayers.
  It has been said by Lord Fitzmaurice that if there was any feeling on the part of the county councils it was rather a feeling against centralisation. He went on to say that he was fully agreed, as we all are, that local authorities should be subject to the general direction of the central authority; and he added that the check could not be too severe, and that in this way the authorities were prevented from scattering their money lavishly about. I hope that my noble friend, with his large knowledge of county council work, did not include county councils among those bodies who scatter their money lavishly. I can only say from my own experience that I cannot recall a single instance where the Local Government Board has done anything to prevent expenditure on the part of county councils; but, on the other hand, there are cases where this centralising influence has had the effect of increasing very largely the expense of county councils.
  Let me cite two examples. It has been the custom in Acts of late years,
  34
  partly for the purpose of passing them more easily through Parliament, and partly, I think, because it is absolutely necessary in some cases, to give power to the Government Department concerned to draw up regulations under which the Act is to be administered. This is no doubt very useful, and as long as the funds are to be raised out of the Exchequer there is complete check, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not find the money unless he is satisfied that the regulations are of a proper character and do not involve unnecessary expense. But where the funds are provided by the county this is not so. Take the case of weights and measures. Only a year ago there was a new issue of regulations by the Local Government Board, made, I admit, in the interests of efficiency, but putting, an unreasonable burden on the counties. We have no voice in the matter, and the regulations are imposed without county councils having any power of making representations. In my own county an expenditure of £250 was caused by these regulations, and I am told that the expense will be much larger next year. I am certain that if these regulations had been drawn up by someone on the spot who knew the circumstances of the county, an unnecessary charge could have been saved without interfering; with efficiency. Then there is the case of the new regulations issued by the Board of Agriculture in regard to swine fever. They were so large that the clerk to the county council assured me that in order to get them posted in the way suggested he had to pay a bill of nearly £50. I am told that they will cost a small county from £150 to £200 this year, and the probability is that before many of them are read they will be again altered by the Board of Agriculture. It is not as if the central authority were going to pay the bill themselves. In these matters the bill has to be paid by the county council, and if their discretion is taken away and measures are imposed upon them which make a considerable charge upon the funds of the county, you cannot be surprised if the county councils smart under a feeling of injustice. They feel very strongly that in cases of this, sort some relief should be given to them. I can assure the House that the county

  35
  councils are ready to discharge all their duties and to do their work as efficiently as they can, but they feel that there should be some hope that they will not have further burdens imposed upon them.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I shall not trouble your Lordships either as to present administration or as to Bills that may hereafter come before us, but I wish to say a word or two on the general question of the rates and their burden and the way in which the matter has been treated. First of all, let me say that I think people use too often the phrase that matters of a national character should be paid by the nation and local charges should be borne by the locality. There is hardly a charge which is defrayed locally which cannot, from a certain aspect, be considered of a national character. If we are to have any formula on the question of national and local charges, it should be that the burden should follow the administration. I think we all feel that subsidies are very dangerous, and that those who have the determination of the expenditure should bear the main burden of raising it.
  Much of this debate has been of a very interesting and instructive character. I should like to associate myself with one or two points made on the other side as to remedies that may be introduced. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount Lord St. Aldwyn, on the importance of making those who have the power of administering these charges conscious of their responsibility and of their burden. Considerable evil has arisen out of the wholesale compounding for rates, which does tend to conceal from persons what they are actually paying. If the ordinary working man in London who occupies a couple of rooms at 6s. or 7s. a week realised that he was paying £6 or £7 a year towards the local government of London, he would probably take greater interest in his local government. I associate myself entirely with the speech of the noble Lord the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and I wish to emphasise his statement that a proper valuation is one of the measures which lie at the root of reform in local administration. However much
  36
  the area may be extended there will still be danger of abuse and unfair valuation in localities. It is a ridiculous thing that you should have boards of guardians and various rural authorities making assessments. Even so large an area as a county borough may have an unfair assessment, and an unfair assessment is always a deliberate underassessment. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Balfour, quoted yesterday, as a sharp contrast, Oldham and Bournemouth. It is not the business of any legislation to try to remedy inequalities of fortune between persons and localities. A rich place like Bournemouth must have larger means, and, therefore, can indulge in larger local expenditure than a poor industrial town. Oldham, I happen to know, is a town which deliberately has an excessive under-valuation of its property. Unless you apply the income-tax assessment and take a reasonable percentage off that, you have a temptation in many places to falsify the valuation. Under the Education Act a district becomes a poor district and obtains a subvention from the State if it shows a valuation below a certain figure per capita. It is, therefore, in the interest of the taxpayer who gives subventions, as well as, in a large area like a county, in the interest of the county as against the various districts, to have an honest and fair assessment.
  But I do not think the question of assessment is the only one which lies at the root of reform in this matter. I do not think you can dissociate the question of local taxation from that of local self-government, and the question of local self-government is very largely a question of suitable areas. While I agree that in legislation the two things may be taken separately, I do not think we can afford to neglect the recollection that both are important. I wish to associate myself with what Lord Balfour said as to the great importance of a good Valuation Bill, which, anyhow, must be a complicated and difficult thing. It would tread upon a good many people's toes and offend a good many interests, and it would be well if we could dissociate that piece of practical legislation from more controversial questions such as separating capital from annual value. A good Valuation Bill

  37
  would require ample time for debate, and there is quite enough in a Valuation Bill without complicating it by the introduction of other matters.
  I wish, in passing, to touch upon the suggestion made by Lord Onslow, which has not been noticed by any speaker since, that the only remedy for the evils of local taxation was to fall back on tariff reform. If we were to adopt taxation upon agricultural products on the line suggested by Mr. Chamberlain we should raise something like £11,000,000 a year in taxation upon those articles consumed by the people, and in addition, by raising prices, we should endow the agricultural interest with about £10,000,000 more. That is to say, we should put a burden on consumers of about £21,000,000 a year. The debate has turned largely on the grievances of the rural rather than of the urban ratepayer. The noble Earl the Lord Chairman used the word "we"—not as meaning your Lordships' House as a legislative assembly, but landowners And persons interested in agricultural land. The question of rating is a far wider one than that of the agricultural community. The burden of rates levied upon the occupiers of agricultural land of the United Kingdom is not more than £4,000,000 a year. The relation that bears to the cost of production of the food and other crops of the country put upon the market is about 2 per cent. People talk as if the burden of the rates was one of the most tremendous burdens on agriculture. It really is one of the least.
  In talking of the burden of rates one of the great questions is on whom the incidence falls. Apart from temporary fluctuations, the permanent rate is just as much, in agricultural communities, a landlord's charge as is the tithe. The first charges on the land are the tithe, the rates, and the landlord's rent; and any increase either of the tithe or the rates must come out of the rent. You cannot get more than an aggregate of those three together, and the question of agricultural rates is more a landlord's question than a tenant's question. Every noble Lord knows that if he has a farm which is tithe free he lets it for a higher rent than a farm which has to pay tithe. It is the same with the rates. We shall never discuss this question properly by mixing the rates up and talking generally
  38
  about the rate as a whole. They are as different in their economic operation as it is possible for them to be.
  The noble Viscount on the front bench spoke of the rates on manufacturers and shopkeepers as being a great burden. I contend that the rate on any place used for business is part of the cost of production, and must fall on the purchaser. A shopkeeper taking a shop in Bond Street pays an enormously enhanced rent, and consequently much higher rates, because he finds that from his position he can do more trade, and purchasers pay longer prices than they would do elsewhere. As I say, we cannot discuss this question properly by talking generally about the rates as a whole. We must bear in mind what the particular rate is, what its incidence is, whether it hampers industry, and whether it presses on the life of the people. If I were asked to say what rate in my opinion was the most oppressive as keeping down the standard of civilisation and health among the people, I should say it was the urban rate upon the inhabited houses of the poor.
  One word more. Lord Balfour drew a contrast between urban rates and rural rates on the ground that urban rates were expended beneficially for some direct profit to ther atepayers, but that rural rates were not. I think nearly all rates are expended for the benefit of those who pay them. The noble Lord spoke as if the agricultural ratepayer got no benefit from the main roads. Everyone derives benefit from good roads. Do you suppose that people would get their commodities brought to them so cheaply if the country grocer and tradesmen had not good roads? It is absurd to imagine that you do not derive benefit unless you personally use the roads. I feel that this question is one which deserves fuller discussion than it has had, but I wish to press that it is no use merely to grumble of the incidence on a particular class of property, for a large part of the rates we pay are passed on to quite different people; and, so far as rates are not a charge on property, to a very large extent, except so far as they fall on inhabited houses, they are a charge which every producer and manufacturer passes on to the general consumer. But that is, of course, no reason why the general system should not be revised.
  LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a, few minutes, and I should like to confine my remarks to discussing any possible remedies that may be thought of for putting an end to this very serious state of affairs. It seems to me that one of the principal reasons why financial burdens are so often shifted from national to local shoulders, so to speak, is that the local authorities present the line of least resistance, and this line of least resistance is produced by the system of compounding.
  I should like to associate myself with every word which fell from the noble Lord who has just sat down, on the subject of compounding and the evils which it brings about. Under that system the increasing burdens put on the ratepayers do not come home to the majority of the electors. It is futile to argue, that they pay them indirectly. It is quite a different thing from a system whereby the rates are demanded from each person as a separate payment. The system of compounding for rates was started originally for two main purposes. I am afraid that one was possibly for party reasons at the moment. It was also started as a convenience to avoid loss in collection, but in many cases there is absolutely no direct economy in that system.
  I will take, for instance, a few figures concerning the borough of Poplar. In 1906–7 the allowance in Poplar to owners of property in respect of their collection of rates, because part of the compounding system is to make large abatements to owners for the burden they take upon themselves of collecting rates from small people, amounted to £37,000, which I am informed represents a rate of something like 1s. in the £ Take, on the other hand, an instance to the contrary, because it is not every authority which has adopted the compounding system. In the borough of Lewisham, which does not compound for its rates, there was a loss in the collection of rates directly amounting to £6,000 in the year 1905; but that compares with £14,400 which would have had to have been allowed to owners if the compounding system had been in force, so that you have a gain of
  40
  over £8,000 to the borough, equal to a 2d. rate. Therefore in my view the compounding of rates is the fons et origo mali to a large extent, and a great deal of the present evil would naturally right itself if it were done away with, because it would be to the interest of thousands of people not now directly interested to put an end to municipal extravagance.
  There is another remedy—that of fixing a lower limit of rateable properties to come under the compounding system. There is an idea that if the limit were reduced to £12 it would go far to diminish the evil. A third remedy is the sending round to people when they pay their rent a card showing how much is rent and how much is due to rates; but I am afraid that not one man in a hundred would take the trouble to read it or to dissociate one thing from another. I feel that, if things go on as at present, we shall soon approach a system under which our taxation will gradually fall practically into the hands of designing persons, who will use their opportunities for plundering the people for their own benefit. That has ruined many other countries and, if things remain unchecked, may lead to the ruin of this country.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, although the noble Lord opposite complained a few moments ago of the somewhat confined nature of this debate, I am sure that on a subject which is not usually considered exciting your Lordships will feel that we owe 10 the noble Earl a most interesting discussion. I would not have ventured to intrude at all but that nobody who has hitherto spoken has taken the point which I myself feel, that the London County Council is perhaps the most important of all the instances of difficulty which have arisen in the discussion so far as it has proceeded.
  The London County Council is the worst instance of over-work of any local body in this Kingdom. It has also been the heaviest loser by the insufficiency of the assigned revenues. Again, it is also the greatest sufferer from the innumerable Acts affecting it passed since 1888. I do not for a moment suggest that one party or the other in the State is to

  41
  blame in this matter, but I think the general spirit of our legislation has been faulty in the extreme in the want of check on the continual imposition of fresh duties on local authorities which they can hardly perform. In old days it was held to be the duty of the State to interfere as little as possible in the private life of the people. Now, certainly in London every child is pursued by the attentions of the London County Council from the cradle to the grave. The County Council comes upon the scene the moment the midwife is called in, in the notification of the birth. As soon as infant life begins the London County Council is responsible for seeing, if the child is not well looked after by its parents, that it is removed from their care. Prevention of cruelty involves all sorts of inspectors. Then there is everything connected with education, including meals, special schools for the deaf and dumb, and for the physically deformed, quite apart from technical education, which is making rapid headway. The London County Council has the supervision of the milk, the water, and the food supply generally, and when the child is growing up baths and wash-houses are provided for the cleanliness of the person; if verminous, there is a special treatment, and if an inebriate a special infirmary. When in search of labour there are labour bureaux; if serving in a shop, shop hours and shop seats; if serving in a factory, special and new provisions. For amusements, there are the parks, and even the provision of boats and gymnasia. Then there are tramways and other means of locomotion, and, in case æesthetic feeling may be hurt by sky-signs, they have all been placed under special inspectors of the County Council.
  Year by year additions are made to the already inordinate mass of these duties, and if I call attention to them it is only because I feel that an effort should be made by both parties in the State to put a check on the tendency to slip powers through Parliament which, without making any charge on the Imperial Exchequer, do so often throw heavy charges on the local rates. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, never said a truer thing than when he stated that the rate
  42
  payer has no friends. Even a charge of a ten pound note on the Treasury is carefully scrutinised, but matters which are going to cost local authorities thousands and hundreds of thousands of pounds are passed through Parliament with the merest modicum of consideration. Great stress has been laid on the benefit of valuation, and if a Valuation Bill could be removed from the more controversial subject, much good might be done.
  Then the noble Viscount opposite laid great stress on the Report of the Poor Law Commission. He spoke of it as almost recasting local government. But I would ask, if that is the view of His Majesty's Government, why have they been so previous in going into the matter of old-age pensions without waiting for the Report of the Poor Law Commission? If local government hangs so largely on that Report, why, in a most essential particular, have the decisions of that Commission been reviewed beforehand by the Government? I ask for some assurance from the Government of a more complete character. The noble Viscount who served at the Local Government Board told the House that while he was there he used his utmost endeavours to keep a hold on the local authorities. Lord St. Aldwyn told us yesterday how very dangerous is the position the present President of the Local Government Board has taken up. I cannot imagine anything more unconstitutional in regard to expenditure than the attempt which has been made in Government Bills of the last two years to place on local authorities great charges, in the decision of which they are to have no voice. To order a local authority, as may be done under the Town Planning Bill, to put up, at their own expense, a large number of buildings which they do not consider necessary seems to me a great innovation and one of a most dangerous and retrograde character.
  I am sorry to say it in this House, but I think we in the London County Council have a very grave complaint to make against the President of the Local Government Board. Before this Bill was introduced we addressed a formal request to him urging him to receive a deputation

  43
  concerning the contemplated proposals, and after having waited more than two months for an answer, received a curt negative. Considering that many millions have been spent under existing Acts by the London County Council, that was, at all events, a scarcely courteous way for a Minister at the head of a great Department to treat representatives of that Council. I cannot help feeling that nothing can be done towards re-casting local expenditure unless the Local Government Board will act much more efficiently as a watchdog and a check upon local bodies. You have the Treasury in the case of the taxpayer, but in the case of the ratepayer the Local Government Board appear for the moment to have gone over to the enemy. They are not merely not acting as a check, but are acting as an incentive to local expenditure.
  As far as our experience in London goes, I know of nothing which tends less to good administration than the doles given by the Exchequer to meet part of, the cost of certain services; and I cannot help feeling that any recasting of local government must go upon the lines of the Exchequer taking back certain services, as was suggested by Lord St. Aldwyn last night, and being wholly responsible for them. At present the London County Council is responsible for the disbursement of an enormous sum upon national services, and this addition to their work, carried on by nearly thirty committees, makes the amount of labour such as to give rise to serious apprehension that men I will not be found willing to give up four or five afternoons each week to discharge the duties.
  I think this discussion has brought out very clearly some points of difference, but it has elicited many points of agreement also. I hope that we shall hear from the noble Earl the Leader of the House something more than allusions to methods of valuation and ad vice to wait for the Report of the Poor Law Commission. It is the duty of the Local Government Board to act as a check upon the many rash and sometimes faddy proposals which are so quickly passed through Parliament and have added enormously to local burdens, and which, if they are
  44
  unfortunately indefinitely continued, must lead to a recodification of the law of local government, and, I hope, the-striking out of a very considerable number of services which never ought to have been instituted and which are at present a serious embarrassment to the efficiency of local government.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I think by common agreement this has been a very interesting debate, and, if it is inconclusive, it only shares that quality with some of the most valuable and important discussions that have taken place from time to time in your Lordships' House. These debates which rove-over a considerable area, are very often, I think, among the most genuinely fruitful, that take place in the House of Lords.
  The noble Viscount who has just sat down spoke of the extra duties and burdens placed upon local authorities. This was also, to a great extent, the text of the very interesting speech which we had from Lord St. Aldwyn, in which he made certain definite proposals in the direction of centralisation. He proposed that the State should take over the lunatic asylums as it had taken over the prisons, and proceed, perhaps, later on, to take over the care it idiots and feebleminded people, infirmaries, and Poor Law schools. Those are suggestions into the details of which I do not propose to enter this evening; but I think the House must recognise that this question of centralisation, attractive as it may sound, has two sides to it. There is a curious, and, as I think, very often an unreasoning dread on the part of the people of this country, of Government Departments. They will accept from a county council, whose opinions they believe they can sway, that which they would not take from a Government Department; and this peculiarity of the English people, which makes government in some respects in this country infinitely more difficult than it is in some countries on the Continent, has to-be borne in mind.
  Moreover, we do not always find agreement as to what it is desirable local authorities should do. We brought in a Scottish Land Bill which proposed to relieve county councils of both the management and the cost of small holdings, and

  45
  noble Lords from Scotland and elsewhere called heaven and earth to witness that we were insulting the county councils by not allowing them to take over this entirely new duty. On the other hand, when we instituted an English Land Bill, in which great powers were given to commissioners and the central body, we were told that we were insulting English county councils by not putting proper confidence in them, and were forcing action upon them through a hard and callous bureaucracy. Therefore we see how exceedingly difficult it is to please everybody in this matter.
  The noble Viscount who has just sat down dealt particularly with the London County Council. He gave a most interesting and epigrammatic list of the vast number of duties which are now thrown upon that authority. He instanced all the duties connected with the care of children from the time of their first appearance in the world. As the noble Viscount went through the list, I could not help thinking what an enormous benefit it is that there should be this network of machinery for the advantage of the children; and I do not believe that if those duties were undertaken directly by a Government Department there would be anything but considerable dissatisfaction, among the people mainly concerned, at what they would conceive to be the prying of a central Government Department, Then the noble Viscount went on to speak of water and of the sometimes analogous substance milk, and the other matters with which the London County Council have to deal. One wonders exactly what it is with which the noble Viscount would like the body of which he is such an ornament to part. What would he like handed over to the central authority? The noble Viscount spoke somewhat severely of the fact that my right hon. friend Mr. Burns did not receive a deputation from the London County Council on the subject of housing. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. friend intended no discourtesy to that body. I assume he considered that his proposals would have the chance of being carefully considered by the London County Council as well as by Parliament before there was any question of their becoming law.
  46
  The noble Earl who initiated this debate dealt with the subject of local taxation in its broadest aspect. His complaint all through was that the burden was to a great extent placed upon the wrong shoulders. In reply to that we say that, as far as one half of it is concerned, that can only be dealt with by an improved system of valuation, that is to say, that so far as property which is at present subject to, rates is concerned, valuation alone will properly allocate the burden to be borne by each class of property. It is equally true, however, that no system of valuation will deal with the other half of the noble Earl's complaint—that is that certain kinds of property do not, in his view, bear their proper share of burden. Personal property does not contribute. How does the noble Earl propose to deal with that? He proposes to broaden the basis of taxation, which might, perhaps, if I desired to be uncivil, be described as a shibboleth, but which I prefer to describe as a convenient Parliamentary phrase. Different people, I believe, attach different meanings to it. The meaning which I suppose the noble Earl attaches to it is the imposition of a duty for purposes of revenue—a small duty on a large number of imported articles. That is the inter-pretation which I assume the noble Earl places upon it. Nobody denies that it would be possible to raise a certain amount of revenue in that way; but you will not by that method get at the man you want to get at for this particular purpose. The man at whom I suppose the noble Earl wants to get is the man who has a million in Consols, lives in a flat, possibly keeps a yacht and a string of racehorses, and contributes a mere trifle to the rates. You will not get at him by broadening the basis of taxation. The only way of getting at him will be either by a graduated income tax or increased death duties. I do not see how that particular gentleman, or the other gentleman who is making £30,000 or £40,000 a year on the Stock Exchange and is living in a villa, can be got at in any other way. They can only be got at by some fiscal changes of the kind that I have indicated.
  I will not dwell on the other points that have been mentioned, nor on the subject of compounding. I should merely like to confirm what my noble

  47
  friend Lord Wolverhampton said—that we do attach the greatest importance to the Report of the Poor Law Commission in dealing with this whole subject. The noble Viscount who has just spoken rather twitted us with touching old-age pensions before receiving the Report of the Poor Law Commission, but if he will look at the Old-Age Pensions Bill he will see that there is no proposal in that measure which can in any way compromise or interfere with any proposition which the Commission may make. I desire to say this, because the point is a very obvious one to make by those who criticise the old-age pension scheme. With regard to Papers, perhaps the noble Earl will defer his request until I have had an opportunity of consulting Mr. Burns, when we will see what Papers and Returns can be produced so as to bring our information more up to date.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I might perhaps be allowed to remind the House that in the concluding words of my speech in initiating this debate I specially said that I considered it to be no business of mine to point out to His Majesty's Government in what way the money should be raised by the Government which would undoubtedly be required for the purpose of making a very large contribution to the burdens now borne by the local ratepayers. That is a matter which I left, entirely to His Majesty's Government. I am bound to state that I do not very much care how they find the money so long as they do find it. I need hardly say that in view of what the noble Earl opposite has just said, I do not intend to press my Motion for Papers, although I was profoundly disappointed when Lord Allendale told the House he was unable to comply with my request. I join with Viscount Wolverhampton in saying that the public servants of this country are not only extremely able but very willing, and I am certain that if His Majesty's Government thought fit to invite those who are quite capable of dealing with this subject in the way the noble Viscount did in 1893 to give their attention to it, the Blue-book might be brought up to date and would be a very valuable contribution to the subject. I mentioned in my speech in opening this debate that I was very largely indebted to a Return submitted
  48
  to the Central Land Association by a gentleman in Gloucester. I only want that amplified and enlarged. That is quite within the power of Government officials, and I do not think it would involve any very large expense. I was, therefore, glad to hear the noble Earl say that if I would defer my request for the present and leave the matter in the hands of His Majesty's Government they would, notwithstanding what was said by the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board, do what they could to meet our
  request.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.