Lords Sitting of 29 October 1908

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Kirkcaldy and Dysart Water. Was presented by the Lord Herschell; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. [No. 215.]
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 581. Mauritius. Report for 1907. Presented (by Command), and ordered [to lie on the Table.
NEW BILL.
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to Agricultural Holdings in Scotland. Was presented by the Earl Carrington; read 1a, and to be printed. [No. 216.]

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  LORD BELPER said the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper raised a question of some importance.
  406
  This Bill was the first that he knew of that dealt with the Press quite apart from the public. As far as he was aware, the Press, wherever they were admitted, were admitted in the name of the public, and if for any reason it was desirable during any part of the proceedings of a local authority to clear the room where the meeting was held so that the proceedings should not be public, the public was excluded and with the public also the Press. In the same way, when a Court was cleared the public and the Press went out; the Press did not remain when the public was excluded. That being the case, he thought it was worthy of consideration whether it was wise in a Bill of this sort to ignore the question of the public altogether. In this particular clause only representatives of the Press were referred to, and he believed it was generally recognised that where one particular class of people was mentioned in an Act, other classes were excluded from its provisions. Therefore, if the Press was mentioned in the Bill without any reference to the public the position of the public as having rights to be present at the meetings in question with the Press would be considerably altered. He fully recognised that it was desirable that the Press should have adequate accommodation, representing as they did that portion of the public who could not be present; but there was no reason why the rest of the public should not be admitted as well. He had called attention to this matter on the Second Reading, and the more he considered the question the more undesirable it seemed to him to be that the public should be ignored in the Bill. He moved an Amendment to secure the object he had in view which would make the clause read—
  "The public, including representatives of the Press, shall be admitted to the meetings of every local authority."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 5, at the beginning of sub-section (1) to insert the words 'The public including.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid there was no intention whatever, on the part of anybody interested in the Bill,

  407
  to interfere in any way with the privileges at present enjoyed by the public. If the noble Lord really thought the public would be injured by not being mentioned in the clause, he would be perfectly willing at a later stage to put in a proviso to the effect that—
  "Nothing in this Act shall in any way prejudice the rights of the public to admission."
  It would not be practicable in all cases to carry out the noble Lord's Amendment, seeing that the great majority of local authorities had no room for the public. The county councils and other important municipal authorities possessed large meeting halls in which they were able to accommodate the Press and the public, but this did not apply to many of the smaller authorities. The Bill, he was told, would affect some 7,000 parish councils throughout the country.
  LORD BELPERasked how many of them the Press would attend.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid it was extremely desirable that the Press should have power to attend all of them, and it was with that desire that the Bill had been drawn in its present form. It was not always advisable to allow the public to be present when it was advisable that the Press should be. Recent events in the London County Council made it necessary that the gallery should be cleared, but there was no reason to remove the members of the Press who knew perfectly well how to behave themselves. It was found necessary, he understood, the previous night to clear certain galleries in the House of Commons, but it was not found necessary to clear the Reporters' Gallery. He suggested to the noble Lord that if the Amendment were carried inconveniences might arise of this kind. If the noble Lord would be satisfied with some such proviso as he had adumbrated, he would be glad to arrange the matter with him before the next stage.
  *LORD ALLENDALE, on behalf of the Government, said he wished to support the noble Earl in what he had said. There was no intention of excluding the public, but the Amendment of Lord Belper, which he understood was being moved on behalf of the County Councils
  408
  Association, entirely altered the scope of the Bill. He believed all county councils admitted both the Press and the public, but it was almost impossible to arrange for the public, to be present at meetings of the smaller bodies. He hoped Lord Belper would accept some such proviso as that suggested by Lord Donoughmore.
  LORD BELPERcould not conceive that there would be any difficulty at all in admitting the public as well as the Press even to the meetings of the smaller authorities. What was proposed by the Bill, but what he did not propose with regard to the general public, was that special accommodation should be set aside for the Press. The Press would have that special accommodation, and if there was any available room afterwards the public would be able to come in. The number of people desirous of attending parish council meetings was not likely to be very large. There did not seem to him to be any reason why a Bill which said that the Press should be admitted should not also say that the public should be admitted. The noble Lord who spoke for the Government had said that this Amendment was being moved on behalf of the County Councils Association. That was not so. The point struck him as requiring attention during the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill, and therefore he had put down the Amendment on his own initiative. The other Amendments standing in his name on the Paper, however, were being proposed on behalf of the County Councils Association. As to the proviso which the noble Earl had suggested, it was rather difficult to withdraw an Amendment in favour of something the exact form of which was not before them.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREexplained that the proviso which he suggested would, subject to legal revision, read—
  "Nothing in this Act shall in any way affect the rights enjoyed by the public of attending meetings of local authorities."
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid there was this objection to that proposal, that it gave the Press an independent status of its own quite apart from the

  409
  public, and that was taken exception to in their Lordships' House on the Second Reading.
  LORD BURGHCLEREdid not think Lord Belper's Amendment would carry out what the noble Lord himself desired. The noble Lord had said that the Press would necessarily be admitted to the meetings of the smaller bodies, and that if there was any room left the public might come in. But the Amendment would provide that the public as well as the representatives of the Press should be admitted to the meetings of every local authority. Therefore, if the Amendment were carried the public would have an equal right with the representatives of the Press.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend on my left pointed out a moment ago that, unless some Amendment of this kind were inserted, the clause would give to the Press a special privilege as distinguished from other classes of society. I think that is true; but, on the other hand, what we have to remember is that this is a Bill which does not purport to deal with the right of access of the public to those meetings, but especially with the right of the Press. Therefore, there does seem to me to be something to be said for dealing with the Press in a special manner. I understand that Lord Donoughmore is quite ready to insert words at another stage of the Bill which would safeguard any rights which the public now habitually exercise, and that, I venture to think, is the more appropriate way of dealing with the point.
  LORD BELPERsaid that, after the discussion that had taken place, he would withdraw his Amendment for the present and wait to see the form which Lord Donoughmore's Amendment would take. His object was that both the Press and the public should have equal rights of entry, but he did not desire that the public should be allowed to take the seats set apart for the Press.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved to omit the first part of the sub-
  410
  section declaring that the representatives of the Press should be admitted, in order to insert: "Every local authority shall appoint one or more reporters who shall record the debates and proceedings of such authority." He said that his Amendments on the Paper appeared rather lengthy, but the first Amendment raised the whole question, the others being simply consequential. He thought he could claim Lord Donoughmore as a supporter of his Amendment, because the noble Earl had said that he aimed at the proceedings of every parish council throughout the country being reported. He was perfectly certain that if the noble Earl expected that, he would not get it. He did not much believe in the reporting in the local Press, because he knew what happened. The facts—that was to say, the bare agenda—was no doubt given. It was not necessary to have a Bill of this sort to secure that. Parliament might enact, if it were necessary, that every local authority should allow its agenda to be seen by the public, and then the newspapers could make what extracts they pleased. At present, discussions which took half-an-hour were reported in half-a-dozen lines, and the only discussions which was really reported at length were those of a personal character. If publicity were desirable—and he did not know that it was in the case of the proceedings of every little local authority—it must be secured in another way altogether, namely, by an official report. Official reporting, as they knew, had been a great success wherever it had been tried. The official reporting for Hansard in their Lordships' House he believed all their Lordships would agree was admirably done, and the reporting of Committees upstairs was first-rate. If they desired really adequate reporting of the proceedings of local authorities for the purposes of publicity they must have official reports. He did not himself think that this publicity was at all necessary. Indeed, he was not very much enamoured of his own Amendment, but he took it that the House, by passing the Second Reading of this Bill, had, provisionally, at any rate, expressed the opinion that publicity was desirable, and he had placed his Amendment on the Paper in order to take the view of the House as to whether the

  411
  method he suggested was not the proper one of securing that object. But there was another great objection to the Bill as it stood. It placed the Press in a position it had never held before in this country. The Press, at present, had no official position, so far as he was aware, in England, although he was told it had in Ireland. By this Bill they were proposing to give gentlemen of the Press a status and a right which they had never had before. The Bill did not appear to meet with the approval of the Institute of Journalists. The Institute of Journalists objected to it very much, and the grounds of their objection were so curious that he would ask their Lordships' leave to read a few lines from a Memorandum which had been sent to him by that body—
  "If the measure be placed upon the Statute-book with this title it will be made to appear to judicial, public, and other authorities, and to all whom it will concern, as if there had been no previous provision 'for the admission' of the Press to the meetings in question. Whereas, to present common knowledge, there is, in long-established fact, very effectual provision. It is probably not necessary, in this connection, to inquire into the nature of the forces by which this provision is maintained—whether they include any element of the sanction or support of law, or whether they rest entirely upon the support of public opinion."
  Therefore the Institute of Journalists were already claiming a legal right for Press representatives to be present at the meetings of local authorities. He did not think that assumption should be supported or justified. Why was the Press to be placed in a position in which no other member of the public was placed? It seemed to him that the Press should have exactly the same facilities as the rest of the public—neither more nor less. He objected very much to giving an official status to a set of gentlemen who lived by their excessive inquisitiveness, who were continually forcing themselves into everybody's affairs, who wanted to know what their Lordships took for breakfast, all about their houses, gardens, pictures, and everything else. He actually remembered an instance, not very long ago, where a friend of his had the management of the funeral of a near relative, and, desiring that it should be of a very private character, was made the subject of comment in the local newspaper because of the enormity that no provision for the Press had been made at the funeral, and
  412
  that, therefore, they had been unable to give an adequate account of the proceedings. The tone of those gentlemen was that they had a right to go everywhere and see everything. He was not in favour of giving legal sanction to a class of persons in that temper and frame of mind. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill had stated, during the Second Reading discussion, that the decision in the case of the Tenby Corporation v. Mason was to the effect that the Press attended all meetings of local authorities practically on sufferance. He thought that was precisely the position in which the Press should remain. He had yet to learn that there had been experienced any difficulty on the part of the Press in attending the meetings of local authorities, except in this very exceptional instance, where there appeared to have been one newspaper which was distasteful to a number of the members. The method proposed in the Bill was not the right one for securing publicity, and, though not pretending that he was anxious for the appointment of an official reporter in the case of all these local bodies because he thought it was very unnecessary, he had placed his Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of indicating what, in his opinion, was the only proper method of securing that which it had been said was desired.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 5, to leave out from the beginning of subsection (1) to the word 'Provided' in line 6, and to insert the words 'Every local authority shall appoint one or more reporters who shall record the debates and proceedings of such authority.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid the noble Duke had a considerable advantage over him, and one which he did not anticipate that he would have. It appeared that the Institute of Journalists had sent round a Memorandum on the subject of this Bill. He presumed that many of their Lordships had received a copy, but the Institute had been careful not to send him one. He had not, therefore, had an opportunity of perusing it. But he might mention that the Institute of Journalists had nothing whatever to do with this Bill. They had no hand in drafting it, and the Bill was not being promoted on their behalf. In

  413
  the document from which the noble Duke had quoted, it was apparently claimed by the Institute of Journalists that the Press had already a perfect right to attend all meetings of local authorities, but, as the noble Duke had pointed out, the judgment in Tenby Corporation v. Mason supplied a complete answer to that claim. He was told that the Institute of Journalists was a body of 2,500 members, of whom very few had much to do with reporting, and therefore were only a small percentage of the tens of thousands of journalists throughout the country who were intimately interested in the proposals of the Bill. His objection to the noble Duke's Amendment was that it amounted practically to the rejection of the Bill and the substitution of an entirely different measure in its place. The Bill did very little more than regularise and confirm the practice of admitting representatives of the Press to the meetings of local authorities, which was now general throughout the country. The noble Duke would exclude the ordinary Press representatives, and set up a system of official reports. These official reports would, in fact, operate against publicity, for they would not be ready until two or three days after the meeting. The public desired their news quick and consequently these reports would be of no use to the Press at all. It would also be a costly system, and no provision was made in the noble Duke's Amendments for defraying that cost. It would mean the appointment of an official reporter to every one of the 7,000 local authorities in the country.
  LORD FABERsaid it did not follow that if the newspapers were supplied with long official reports of speeches they would publish them. Noble Lords were mistaken if they thought that the mere fact of an official reporter being present and taking down the discussions at the meetings of small parish councils all over the country would mean publicity, unless the Press were heavily paid to insert the reports.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I cannot help thinking that the proposal of the noble Duke might have somewhat inconvenient results if the Committee
  414
  were to adopt it. My noble friend suggests that throughout the length and breadth of the country we should introduce a system of official reporting, even at the meetings of the smallest local authorities. Now there seems to me to be all the difference in the world between saying to the local Press, "You may be present at these meetings, you may report as much or as little as you please in the interests of publicity," and appointing all over the country reporters upon whom would be imposed the duty of compiling an official record of the proceedings. The noble Duke referred to the manner in which the proceedings in this House are reported, and I am sure we all agree with him that nothing could be more admirable than the manner in which that duty is performed. But does the noble Duke suppose that it would be possible to discover all over the United Kingdom reporters as competent to reproduce faithfully the local discussions which take place as the gentleman who reproduces our Parliamentary debates? I am afraid the result of the change would be this, that you would have all over the country a small army of third or fourth-rate reporters, whose reports, in spite of the absence of skill of those who made them, would be invested with a kind of artificial authority to which they really would not be at all entitled. For these reasons I am afraid I cannot support my noble friend's Amendment.
  *LORD ALLENDALEintimated that the Government were opposed to the Amendment, as they considered it entirely outside the scope of the Bill. It was very doubtful, to his mind, whether the noble Duke's proposal was in order. The Bill might be a good Bill or a bad Bill, but the Amendment had really nothing to do with it. As Lord Donoughmore had pointed out, there were 7,000 parish councils in England and Wales, and he thought it rather absurd that one or more reporters should be appointed solemnly to record their debates at a very considerable expense.
  LORD BELPERhoped the noble Duke Would not press his Amendment. It would really be impracticable in practice, and would involve very heavy

  415
  expense. Moreover, it was quite unnecessary that the discussions at the meetings of small local authorities should be reported at length.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he would withdraw his Amendment with the greatest pleasure. He did not very much believe in it himself. To set up a system of official reporting would be a waste of time and money; but the fact remained that it was the only way of having the proceedings of local authorities properly reported.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to delete from subsection (1) the words "But nothing in this proviso shall empower a local authority to discriminate against the representative of any particular newspaper." He explained that these words were in the Bill before subsections (2) and (3) were added in the House of Commons, and, through an oversight, were not struck out. Sub-section (2) was the really protective provision.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word 'interest' to the end of the subsection."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to amend subsection (3) which ran—
  "(3) If any representative of the Press feels aggrieved by any such regulations made as aforesaid, he may appeal to the Local Government Board, and the Board may order such local authority as aforesaid to vary or alter such regulations in such a manner as they may think fit, and no regulations in so far as they are so varied or altered shall be subsequently varied or rescinded by the local authority without the consent of the Board,"
  by omitting the words "feels aggrieved by," and inserting the words "is excluded under." It had been pointed out by Lord Wenlock on the Second Reading that the subsection as at present drafted might give any representative of the Press a right to appeal to the Local Government Board on the ground that he was not comfortable or that the accommodation with which he had been
  416
  provided was not adequate, and endless trouble and confusion would be caused. It was never intended that that should be the effect of the subsection, and the object of his Amendment was to make the point clear.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 23, to leave out the words 'feels aggrieved by,' and to insert the words 'is excluded under.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  EARL RUSSELLasked whether the noble Earl was quite sure that the subsection was not intended to refer to the accommodation provided. He had read it as referring exclusively to that. Without it the object of the Bill might be defeated by the provision of accommodation in some distant part of the building in which the reporters could neither write nor hear. In that case they would have no remedy under the Amendment although they would feel aggrieved.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREwas afraid that in such a case the reporters would have no remedy except what they could possibly secure as electors.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPER, who had an Amendment on the Paper to omit subsection (3) altogether, said that, although the Amendment to which the Committee had just agreed made the subsection rather more practicable, it did not remove his objection, which was that it was perfectly impossible, in a matter of this kind, for the Local Government Board to supervise the arrangements made, not only by county councils, but by all the smaller local authorities throughout the country. It was impossible for this duty to be performed at a distance, and the Local Government Board staff had quite enough to do without being sent round the country to see whether reporters might not be provided with better accommodation. He understood that this subsection was inserted at the suggestion of the London County Council. He could quite understand that body desiring in this matter to have an arbitrator on the spot, and in that case there

  417
  would be no difficulty. But it was quite impossible for the Local Government Board to exercise effective control over the accommodation provided throughout the country. He hoped the subsection would not be pressed, as it seemed to him totally unsuitable for the purpose for which it was intended.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 23, to page 2, line 5, to leave out subsection (3)."—(Lord Belper.)
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREdefended the subsection. It was necessary to have some safeguard against unfair exclusion. There was a recent case at Tenby where a reporter was excluded on account of his personal opinions. This subsection had been introduced at the desire of the London County Council, their reason being that more reporters might wish to attend the meetings of the Council than accommodation could be provided for. The mere existence of such a safeguard would very often make its actual use in practice unnecessary. The fact that the appeal existed would make local authorities careful to give no cause for appeal. The effect of the subsection would be more indirect than direct, and he did not think there was any fear that the Local Government Board would be overworked as a result of its insertion.
  *LORD ALLENDALEsaid the Local Government Board had no particular desire to undertake the rather ungrateful task of arbitrating between the local authority and the aggrieved Press representative; but, on the other hand, they thought there ought to be some right of appeal. The Local Government Board were, therefore, prepared to accept the position of being the authority to be appealed to. If, however, the noble Lord would prefer some other authority, perhaps he would suggest one, and no doubt his suggestion would receive consideration.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDasked if local authorities were to find accommodation for any number of Press men who attended?
  LORD BELPER: Yes.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid it seemed so to him. In that case, it would in many instances mean building.
  *LORD FABERthought the noble Duke need not be alarmed. There was not the least likelihood of twenty, thirty, or more reporters rushing to attend a parish council meeting. Reporters only attended the meetings of local authorities when the business was of vital public interest. In the belief that there was no likelihood of there being any such rush as had been referred to, he would vote against the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid the county council over which he presided would find extreme difficulty in accommodating twenty reporters. If it really was the case that the Bill meant that local authorities were to find accommodation, at whatever inconvenience or expense to themselves, for any number of reporters who chose to attend, the provision should be amended in some way.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid he spoke only from memory, but he was under the impression that by the existing law every ratepayer or parish elector already had the right to attend parish council meetings. Therefore, as far as the provision of accommodation was concerned, the existing law enforced that on even the smallest bodies.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHasked what was the use of the Bill if that were so. If every inhabitant could attend the meetings, where was the necessity for reporting them? His county council had sufficient accommodation for the representatives of the Press who attended; but if they were to have a great rush under this Bill were they to go to a large expense in structural alterations? He hoped Lord Belper would divide the Committee on the Amendment.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREpointed out that the subsection only referred to the exclusion by regulation. The point was that if a local authority

  419
  made a regulation, excluding any individual journalist, he should have a right to appeal. A certain authority recently did make a regulation excluding a certain individual, and there had been other instances.
  LORD BELPERsaid it had come to a pass when Parliament was asked to enact a provision of this kind because one or two authorities had done something exceptional. By this subsection the discretion of county councils with regard to their own buildings was to be placed in the hands of a central authority. Really, grandmotherly legislation was being carried in this way to a ridiculous extreme, and, in order to enter a protest, he would certainly divide the Committee on the Amendment. The noble Lord who represented the Local Government Board had suggested that if he (Lord Belper) did not like the Local Government Board to be the authority to be appealed to, some other authority should be named. That was not his business. But he did contend that people returned by the county to sit upon the county council were fully qualified to make the necessary arrangements in regard to their own council chamber.
  EARL RUSSELLreferred the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to the language of the subsection. Lord Donoughmore had said that what might be appealed against was a regulation excluding the reporter or his newspaper. But the words in the subsection were that the regulations which might be appealed against were "regulations made as aforesaid." Those were the regulations contained in subsection 2, and no regulation made under that subsection could possibly exclude the representatives of any newspaper.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that the manner in which the accommodation, referred to in subsection 2, was allotted could easily exclude certain individuals.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYdoubted whether, even if the subsection remained as it stood, an increased number of reporters
  420
  would wish to attend the meetings If they did, they would only ask for reasonable accommodation.
  *LORD ALLENDALE, replying to Lord Belper's contention that the Local Government Board could not know the local circumstances, said that if there was an appeal the Board would, of course, send someone down to hold an inquiry and report. They would not capriciously make an order without ascertaining the circumstances.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I confess that what I have heard said in reference to this subsection does not increase my affection for it. It appears to me to involve a great deal of what looks like superfluous legislation, and the question I should like to ask some Member of your Lordships' House who can speak with authority on the legal point is this. We have, in subsection (1), given representatives of the Press the right of being admitted to all these meetings. Suppose you say nothing more after that, and one of these local bodies endeavours to exclude a Press representative, would it not be the case that he would have a remedy at common law without the elaborate precautions proposed to be taken under this subsection? If that is so, then I say leave the sub-section out.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that if he accepted this Amendment now it was only in order that he might consult the London County Council on the subject. He might desire to reintroduce it, confining its operation to London.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord FITZMAURICE)said he did not presume to address their Lordships on the legal point raised by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition; but he wished to insist upon this, that what the Committee were now discussing could not apply to anything that occurred under subsection (1). The only point before the Committee at the moment was the regulations which could be made under sub-section (2).
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to amend the fourth subsection, which ran—
  "(4) On receiving a written request from the editor or the local representative of any newspaper, the clerk or other responsible officer shall send due notice of the meetings of the local authority to the office of such newspaper or to such local representative,"
  by leaving out the words "or the local representative." This subsection had, he said, met with a great deal of criticism during the Second Reading discussion, and it was to meet that criticism that he had placed on the Paper the Amendments standing in his name to the subsection. The words as they stood were originally inserted because it was felt that the local representative was on the spot and that it would be more convenient that he should be communicated with. It had, however, been suggested that difficulties might arise, and therefore he now proposed to confine the provision to the editor of any newspaper.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words 'or the local representative.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to insert in subsection (4), after the word "newspaper," the words "ordinarily represented at the meetings of the local authority." He explained that these words were in the Bill as originally drafted, but were accidentally omitted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 7, after the word 'newspaper' to insert the words 'ordinarily represented at the meetings of the local authority.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPERthen moved the omission of subsection (4). He explained that this Amendment was put down on behalf of the County Councils Association, but he felt that the Amendment to which the Committee had just
  422
  agreed considerably modified the subsection as it had previously stood. In its old form the subsection enabled any representative of any newspaper throughout the country to call upon the clerk to send him due notice of the meetings of the local authority. The custom of the county council with which he was connected was to send not only notices of the meetings but also the agendas to those newspapers which were habitually represented at the council meetings. He believed that was the practice in the case of county councils throughout the country, and therefore, so far as those bodies were concerned, the provision in the Bill would not alter the present procedure, but would make what was a practice by courtesy a law by statute. He was not competent to say whether the proposal would be met by other local authorities in the same spirit; but, as far as county councils were concerned, he would not be inclined, if those with whom he generally acted and who represented county councils took the same view, to press his Amendment for the entire omission of subsection (4) now that, it had been amended.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 6 to 10, to leave out subsection (4)."—(Lord Belper.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNhoped this Amendment would be insisted upon. The present practice had been explained by Lord Belper. The county clerk was one of those maids-of-all-work on whom everybody, the Treasury included, thought they had a right to impose duties. The more they heard of this Bill the more absurd its enactments seemed, and on the Third Reading he did not know whether he should not move its rejection.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREalluded to the case of certain councils in Ireland in which the majority continually arranged their meetings at about half-an-hour's notice, in order that important business might be got through without being discussed, and without anybody-knowing anything about it. That was an example of what might happen if this Amendment were carried.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that, with all due respect to the noble Earl, he objected to legislation for England being proposed for the benefit of Ireland. If the provision was to be effective it would prevent meetings being held unless, forsooth, the Press had received sufficient notice. That would seriously interfere with the business of local government.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREexplained that the subsection did little more than give a statutory authority to what was already a common practice.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHmoved an Amendment to include within the definition of the phrase "representatives of the Press," "any person qualified as a journalist according to the charter and bye-laws of the Institute of Journalists." He said he had no active connection with the society in question, but had had the honour some ten or twelve years ago of being elected an hon. Fellow with a late Lord Chief Justice of England and an eminent and universally known French novelist and journalist who was also deceased. By the Bill, so far as their Lordships had approved of it, access was secured to accredited representatives of particular newspapers. As he construed the Bill, no Pressman had a title to admission unless he attended as the appointed representative of some particular newspaper. As a matter of fact there were persons, especially in large towns, who were not accredited representatives of a particular newspaper, but carried on journalistic work. They attended the meetings of local authorities and picked up what was of public interest, and this they sent to various newspapers. These journalists were doing useful work, but at present they did not come within the scope of the Bill. Referring to the Institute of Journalists, he said it came into existence some eighteen years ago and possessed the unique distinction of a Charter from the Crown. No other body of journalists had that distinction,
  424
  and the Institute secured that journalists who were admitted to membership should possess the necessary advantages of training and ability to enable them to discharge their work. No doubt other associations might put in a claim for recognition, but they were purely voluntary associations not recognised in the way that the Institute of Journalists was recognised. The body promoting this Bill was organised simply as a trade union, whereas the Institute of Journalists, as he had said, enjoyed a recognised status through the possession of a Royal Charter. He understood that the membership far exceeded the figure stated by the noble Earl; it had about 5,000 members, and no other society of journalists had a membership much above 2,000. He was informed that the society promoting this Bill had only a membership of 1,500. He submitted that the Institute of Journalists had a full claim to recognition in the way proposed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 10, after the word 'newspapers,' to insert the words 'and shall include any person qualified as a journalist according to the charter and bye-laws of the Institute of Journalists.'"—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREhoped the noble Lord would not consider it necessary to press the Amendment. The clause as it stood provided that—
  "The expression 'representatives of the Press' means duly accredited representatives of newspapers and of news agencies systematically carrying on the business of selling and supplying reports and information to newspapers."
  He regretted that he had been misinformed as to the membership of the Institute of Journalists; 2,500 was the number given to him, but he was sure the noble Lord's figure would be correct. But, even with a membership of 5,000, the Institute of Journalists could not claim to include a majority of the journalists who had been carrying on such work as the Committee were considering. He was told that the Institute comprised a great many owners and managers of newspapers, persons interested in literary work and so on, who would not really be concerned in the matter at all. He fully admitted that the Institute of

  425
  Journalists was the largest, the most important, and the oldest journalistic organisation; but he did not see any sufficient ground for giving the Institute a position as a privileged body.
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHsaid he was convinced that the practice of the past would continue, and that the journalists in question would be able to secure admission, notwithstanding anything in the Bill. He, therefore, withdrew the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved an Amendment substituting for the last of the paragraphs defining the expression "local authority" the following:—"Any other local body, board, joint board, or committee which has, or may hereafter have the power to make a rate, and which does not require to report its proceedings to any other local authority." He explained that county councils in Scotland considered that it was not only unnecessary but undesirable that this power should extend to all meetings of committees and sub-committees and small bodies. They were also afraid that as the clause stood an absolute right would be given to the Press to be present at the meetings of standing joint committees. The substantial intentions of the Bill would not be interfered with by the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, lines 27 to 31, to leave out Paragraph (c), and to insert the following new paragraph: (c) Any other local body, board, joint board, or committee which has or may hereafter have the power to make a rate, and which does not require to report its proceedings to any other local authority."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREdid not object to the change if it was satisfactory to the Scottish Office. He was not competent to judge whether in the case of Scotland the noble Earl's words
  426
  were calculated to attain what he desired; but he had never known the noble Earl wrong on Scottish matters, and therefore would accept the Amendment.
  LORD HERSCHELLsignified the assent of the Scottish Office to the Amendment, but said the expression "impose a rate" would be more in accordance with Scottish phraseology than "make a rate."
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNaccepted this verbal alteration.
  On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6:
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNcalled attention to subsection (2), which provided that the Act should not extend to Ireland. He could not help remarking upon this subsection. The Bill was Hibernian from beginning to end. It was proposed by an eminent Hibernian, who was most anxious that there should be the fullest publicity in connection with every hole and corner meeting except in Ireland. Why in the world was publicity so desirable everywhere else except in Ireland?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Because we have got it.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. [No. 217.]

SMALL HOLDINGS.
LORD MONK-BRETTON: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government what is the period of years which the Local Government Board, under the powers given to them by Section 14 of the Small Holdings Act of 1907, are prepared to authorise for the repayment of loans incurred for the following purposes respectively; Purchase of freehold land; construction of buildings on freehold land; adaptation of freehold land for small holdings; payment of tenant

427
rights; construction of buildings on leasehold land; adaptation of leasehold land for small holdings.
This question is one of some importance to local authorities who have to administer the Small Holdings Act, and as His Majesty's Government have preferred that it should be deferred until to-day, I hope they will be able to give me a direct answer to the Question. It is important to local authorities because they have to recoup out of the rent which they are to charge for small holdings the expense of the equipment of them, and local authorities are unable to fix a rent because they do not know what are the terms for the repayment of these loans. Until they are able to fix the rent they cannot expect applicants to agree to take the holdings, and until they can get the applicants to agree to take the holdings it is a waste of money for the local authority to equip them. Therefore the whole of the administration of the Act is hung up by the fact that the periods for the repayment of these loans are not known.
I notice, from another Question on the Paper, in the name of the Earl of Kimberley, that one county council, at any rate, has rushed in with its scheme before it knew exactly what was going to be the answer to my Question, and is now regretting its precipitancy. I belong to a county council which has been more cautious. That local authority wrote to the Local Government Board and asked practically the questions which I have placed on the Paper. The Local Government Board, in their reply, said that as regards freehold land the term of repayment was to be eighty years, and that as regards loans for the payment of tenant right valuation it was also to be eighty years. They then proceeded—
"The Board are unable to say what periods would be allowed for the repayment of loans in respect to the value of existing buildings on the land to be purchased, or the alteration of such buildings or the erection of new buildings, in the absence of full information as to the age and condition of the buildings, the nature of the works to be carried out, and the buildings to be erected."
They further stated, with regard to the question of leasehold land and buildings on leasehold land—
"It would not accord with the Board's usual practice to allow for the repayment of loans for
428
works on leasehold land a longer period than the unexpired term of the lease."
I should like to ask if this is a final answer, for, if it is, it will not make the Small Holdings Act very easy to carry out.
I will first deal with the statement of the Local Government Board, with regard to buildings on freehold land, that they will require full information in regard to every one of those buildings. The local authorities cannot fix the rent until they know what the period for the repayment of these loans is to be, and now, on the top of that, they have to submit, I take it, every building, cottage, and pigsty to the Local Government Board for that authority to say for what period they will lend money on those particular buildings. If every local authority has to do that the applicants for small holdings will be dead before the small holdings are equipped Then I come to the statement of the Local Government Board that the term for the repayment in respect of leasehold land is to be the same as the term of the lease. In that case these small holders will have to pay such a rent as will recoup to the county councils, not only the interest on the money expended on the lease, but also the interest on the buildings within the term of thirty-five years. The result will be that the rent will be too high, and the leasehold part of the Act will become practically a dead latter. Therefore county councils will be driven from leasing to purchase.
A great many of these applicants for small holdings are applying for land close to towns. That land generally has a prospective building value, and therefore it would be much more economical if the county councils could lease it than if they are, as they will be under this regulation of the Local Government Board, forced to purchase; and, if they are forced to purchase, Clause 33 of the Act becomes nugatory. There is one other point upon which I should like some information. The Local Government Board, in the letter which I have quoted, say that for tenant right valuation the term for repayment is to be eighty years, which seems to be a very liberal term. Why is it so liberal? For how long will these county councils be

429
out of pocket in respect of this matter? Merely for the period between the departure of the outgoing farmer and the arrival of the incoming farmer. That will be a period of six months or a year, and it seems most unnecessary that that loan should be extended over a period of eighty years, unless, of course, His Majesty's Government mean something quite different. What I would ask the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board to tell me is this: Do they intend by that regulation that small holders are not to pay valuation upon their small holdings when they come in? That will make a very considerable difference to the security of the rates out of which failures have to be recouped.
I hope the noble Earl will be able to give a straightforward answer—I beg his pardon, I mean a direct answer—because it is very hard that local authorities should not know which way to turn in this matter. Since this letter arrived the local authority concerned has had a visit from one of His Majesty's Commissioners, to whom the letter was shown. He had never seen it, and he gave us a good deal of advice, but asked us to treat that advice as private. Therefore I am not authorised to quote it in your Lordships' House, but what fell from His Majesty's Commissioner differed altogether from the letter of the Local Government Board which I have quoted.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, it has been suggested that the noble Lord who will reply on behalf of the Local Government Board should answer at the same time the Question standing in my name on the Paper. I therefore beg to ask why the loans granted to the county council of Norfolk for the purchase of lands for small holdings are based, as regards the land, on a redemption of the loans in eighty years, but, as to the buildings on the lands, on a basis of redemption in fifteen years; also, if he is aware that this is entirely at variance with the schemes as sanctioned by the Board of Agriculture for the purchase of these lands, and that consequently on one estate purchased by the county of Norfolk the rent will
430
have to be increased by 10s. an acre, which is more than the tenants can be expected to pay, and that therefore the loss must be made up by the Imperial Exchequer and ratepayers.
The noble Lord opposite, Lord Monk-Bretton, stated that the Norfolk County Council had rushed into this matter and was now regretting its precipitancy. On 5th August we received a communication from Whitehall stating that, as a general rule, county councils would be able to acquire land much more easily if they were willing to purchase, and the Board hoped that county councils would not restrict their powers in any way by confining themselves to hiring. When we received that letter we endeavoured to carry out the ideas of the Board of Agriculture. It is, of course, much more satisfactory to buy land than to hire. No county council would ever dream of building, except in a small way, on hired land. Our grievance is this, that, having carried out the suggestions of the Board of Agriculture and had schemes passed on the basis of redemption in eight years, we were then told, on applying for the loan, that we could not have it on those terms. On one estate purchased by the county of Norfolk at a cost of £3,560, and which we calculated we could let at 50s. an acre, the effect of basing the loan in respect of buildings on redemption in fifteen years is that the rent should be increased by 10s. an acre, but of course it is quite impossible to ask for that amount. The buildings, with proper management, will last 50 or 100 years, and to require the loan to be repaid in fifteen years make sit absolutely impossible to administer the Act. Like all the other Acts passed for small holdings, this Act becomes a farce and a burlesque. We purchased another piece of land for £2,500, and unless the period of redemption is eighty years, or, at any rate, a very much longer period than fifteen years, for the buildings, we shall not be able to make it pay. Yet I would take the land off the county for £2,800—a profit of £300 on their bargain—and let out to tenant farmers and make a good profit. There is no difficulty with regard to tenant right. We pay for the tenant right at valuation on everything we take over and sell to the incoming tenant, and if the incoming

431
tenant does not want to purchase we sell it to somebody else. The Act of Parliament says we are to have schemes from the Board of Agriculture. We have carried out their schemes according to their own figures, and now we find ourselves in the unpleasant position I have described. It is a case of my Lord Carrington proposes and the Grand Seignior Burns disposes.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I should like to ask whether the buildings referred to by the noble Earl are of timber and corrugated iron, or substantially built of brick with tiled roofs. An inspector from the Board of Agriculture visited my small holdings in Staffordshire, and expressed the hope that the Board would allow county councils to erect a cheaper form of buildings. Of course, if the buildings are cheap—that is to say, of timber and corrugated iron—eighty years would be too long a period over which to spread the repayment; but, on the other hand, if the buildings are substantially built, then I think they would, with care, last eighty years, and I daresay the county authorities would see that they were kept up.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: We bought the whole farm with all the buildings. They are nothing more nor less than ordinary brick-built farm buildings, and I undertake to say they will last quite sixty or seventy years.
*LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, I will, with the permission of your Lordships, answer together the two Questions that have been put to me. The Question standing in the name of Lord Kimberley is, as your Lordships will see, addressed to the President of the Board of Agriculture, but as the loans have to be sanctioned by the Local Government Board it may be convenient that I should reply to that Question also.
I will first answer the Question put by Lord Monk-Bretton. As your Lordships no doubt are aware, money can only be borrowed for the purposes of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, with the sanction of the Local Government Board. The maximum periods of repayment of loans for these purposes are fixed by statute and are as follow: Where
432
money is borrowed for the purchase of land, eighty years, and for any other purpose, fifty years. The consent of the Local Government Board is necessary to the period of repayment in each case, but the period is, of course, subject to the statutory limits. The periods to which the Board are prepared to consent are: Loans for the purchase of freehold land, eighty years; for buildings, fifty years—although the usual period is for thirty years the Local Government Board are prepared to consent to loans for fifty years if the probable life of the building is not less than this; for other buildings or equipment, a less term proportionate to the probable life of the particular work. If land is held on lease with less than fifty years unexpired the period would not exceed the period of the lease, unless at the expiration of the lease compensation will be payable to the local authority in respect of the buildings, and the compensation will be applied in paying off the debt; in which case the period for the loan might be longer than the unexpired period of the lease. Compensation as a general rule would be so payable. Any payment for the tenant right which a small holder could not reasonably be expected to repay to the council would be treated as part of the purchase money. Of course, the circumstances of each case will have to be taken into account. The noble Lord suggested that if the details respecting every pigsty, and so on, had to be gone into, it would be a very lengthy process. Of course the Local Government Board will have to satisfy themselves as to the condition of the buildings, but I do not think it need take a very long time. They will consult the Board of Agriculture, who, of course, will have reports from their experts. I do not think there need be anything like the delay suggested by the noble Lord.
In reply to the Question put by Lord Kimberley, I have to say that one of these loans in the county of Norfolk was for fifteen years for buildings, some of which were old and dilapidated. Since, however, the sanction was given, the question of the periods to be allowed for loans under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act has been further considered, and it is intended in future to fix the periods in accordance with the

433
intimation I have just given in the Answer to Lord Monk-Bretton. The county council have asked the Board to reconsider the period of fifteen years referred to by Lord Kimberley, and this request will now be dealt with on the lines already indicated in that reply.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I hope the House will be satisfied with the very clear statement which has been made by my noble friend. The periods are to be eighty years for land and fifty years for buildings. We are obliged to the two noble Lords for having brought the question forward. We can quite understand the anxiety of my noble friend behind me, Lord Kimberley, who has done such good work in the county to which he belongs in the cause of small holdings. But it should be remembered that the Act is in its infancy, and the Local Government Board have had to make a new departure. I may say that I am perfectly satisfied with the terms announced by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, and I think there is very little doubt, now that the matter is finally settled, that the Act will be able to work smoothly and quickly.

OLD-AGE PENSIONS—TREASURY REGULATIONS.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to move, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will annul Regulation No. 25 which has been laid before Parliament in pursuance of the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908." I propose to ask your Lordships to agree to this Motion for two reasons. The first is that already the Treasury and the Local Government Board seek to impose on county councils a charge which, so far as I can ascertain, they have no legal authority to impose, and which the county council has no legal power to comply with. My second reason is that the Treasury proceeds to direct that this shall be charged upon the general county fund, "any statute to the contrary notwithstanding." To me it appears that that is an attempt, on the part of a Department, to dispense with statutes—
434
a power which, so far as I know, has never been exercised even by Parliament itself, and which I believe has never hitherto been claimed by any Department.
If this were my own opinion only, I should attach comparatively little importance to it, because the question is to a considerable extent a legal one; but I have consulted several eminent persons learned in the law, and they all take the view which I have mentioned to your Lordships. I have the authority of Lord Halsbury, who unfortunately has been ordered by his doctor not to leave his house to-day, to say that in his opinion the action of these two Boards in this matter is both illegal and unconstitutional.
In order to explain my Motion I think it will be better that I should remind your Lordships first of all what are the powers and duties of county councils under the Old-Age Pensions Act; secondly, what are the powers given to the Treasury by the Act in regard to finance; and, thirdly, that I should point out what the Treasury and the Local Government Board have actually done in this Regulation. Under Section 8, subsection (1), of the Act, county councils and borough councils are directed to appoint pension committees. When they have done that they have discharged their whole duties. They are not mentioned again in the Act, and, as soon as they have made these appointments they are, so far as I read the Act, functus officio. Further than this, your Lordships will remember that the Pensions Act throughout the whole period of its passage, both through the other House and this House, was treated as being entirely a national Act, a matter for the taxpayers and in no sense as connected with local government or with local rates; and your Lordships will find stated in two or three places in the Act that the whole of the money is to be found by Parliament.
Let me make another observation with regard to county councils and their power of complying with the demand to make an advance under this Act. So far as I have been able to ascertain, county councils are bound strictly by the Local Government Acts,

435
and in levying the rates and appropriating them they are bound by the statutes; their accounts are liable to audit, and, if they make any illegal charges, my belief is that they would be liable to surcharge by the auditor. Let us turn now to the Treasury and the Local Government Board. What powers are given to them as to the finance in the Act? The first subsection of Clause 10 of the Act provides that—
"The Treasury in conjunction with the Local Government Board and with the Postmaster-General (so far as relates to the Post Office) may make regulations for carrying this Act into effect, and in particular"—
And the last of the three following paragraphs reads—
"(c) As to the number, quorum, term of office and proceedings generally of the local pension committee and the use by the committee, with or without payment, of any offices of a local authority, and the provision to be made for the immediate payment of any expenses of the committee which are ultimately to be paid by the Treasury."
Those words, as I read them, mean any provision which can be made legally, that is, without departing from statutes to the contrary. If Parliament had intended to say that they might make any provisions they chose Parliament would have said so, and would have stated that they might make provision "notwithstanding any statutes." But Parliament did nothing of the kind, and one can only read the words as they stand in the statute.
Now what has the Treasury done? I refer your Lordships to Regulation No. 25—
"25.—(1) For the purpose of providing for the immediate payment of any expenses properly incurred by any committee (including any expenses properly incurred by any sub-committees appointed by the committee) the council by whom the committee was appointed shall from time to time advance such sums as may be necessary to provide for the payment of those expenses."
Under what part of the statute is power given to impose a charge on the county council? Not only that, but supposing this charge is made, what power has the county council to comply? They are bound by the various Local Government Acts. This Old-Age Pensions Act was never contemplated in the Local Governments Acts, and Parliament has distinctly stated that it is not an Act connected
436
in any way with local government. Then I ask, what power have they to order the advance to be made? I think the Treasury entertained some doubt as to whether their action was legal, because if your Lordships will read on, you will find this provision—
"Any sum so advanced by the council shall, notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, be provided out of the county fund."
Do not those words show that the Treasury were aware that they were acting contrary to statute? Again, what power had the Treasury to say that this was to be a charge on the county fund?
The words "notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary," appear to me, as they appear to my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury, to be unconstitutional. Here is a Department arrogating to itself a right to dispense with the statutes. Such a right has never been exercised by Parliament itself. When Parliament wishes to alter a statute it alters it, but it does not begin by disobeying it. I lay stress upon this because it is the general tenor of the legislation now coming before this House. I appeal to the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees whether an attempt is not being continually made by Departments to arrogate to themselves the powers of Parliament. I cannot believe that His Majesty's Government will support this, because, if I may be permitted so far to transgress the order of debate, I would refer to an incident that occurred in the House of Commons only two days ago. The Town Planning Bill was under consideration, and there was in that Bill a clause very similar to this, but with this important difference, that the Local Government Board was asking the consent of Parliament to do away with statutes; it was not doing away with them without asking permission. But when the matter came before the Committee they decided that no Department could be allowed to interfere with public statutes, and the Government accepted an Amendment on the point. Therefore it seems to me that the Government can hardly defend what has been done in this case.
Turning to another aspect of the question, it may be argued that there was no

437
other way of carrying out the Act except by imposing this charge. If your Lordships will read subsection (3) of Regulation No. 25 you will see that the Treasury provide a way themselves. The subsection runs—
"The Treasury may, for the purpose of providing for the payment by any such council of any such expenses, if they think fit so to do, advance to the council such sums as the Treasury think proper for the purpose, and the council shall apply the sums so advanced accordingly."
Therefore it was within the power of the Treasury to do this in all cases, and there was no necessity, as far as I can see, for them to go to the county council. What is there in the Act which in any way suggests the county council rather than any other body, private or public—let us say, for instance, the Licensed Victuallers' Association—as the body on whom the charge is to be made?
Just let us suppose a case. Suppose that the Regulation stands and that some county councils, as very probably they will, decline to comply with it, and say that it is not their duty to find funds and that they have no legal power to do so. What will happen then? Will the Treasury apply for a mandamus? I put that point to Lord Halsbury to-day, and he informed me that in such a case he believed the Judges would be compelled to find that there was no legal authority in the Treasury to direct the making of this charge, or in the county council to impose such a charge. What is the cause of this regulation, because obviously it has not been very fully considered? The cause really is hurry. The Bill came up to this House on 20th July and we had finished it, very much against our will, by 30th July. Many noble Lords desired the consideration of the Bill to be postponed until the present time, and the only reason we did not insist upon that was that the Government informed us they would not be able to bring the Act into operation by 1st January if postponement were insisted upon. What is the consequence? These Regulations were drawn up in tremendous haste. Parliament adjourned on 1st August. Looking at the Regulations casually you might suppose that they were issued on 15th October, the date which appears on the
438
front page, but at the bottom of page 16 there is a line to this effect—
"These regulations shall be deemed to have had effect as from the 20th day of August, 1908."
So these Regulations appear to have been drawn up in three weeks. They are signed by two Lords of the Treasury, by the President of the Local Government Board, and also on behalf of the Local Government Board for Ireland, but I do not believe that any one of those Ministers signed them in any other way than ministerially.
How is it possible that a set of Regulations affecting an intricate Act of this sort could be properly drawn up in three weeks and examined by the various Ministers who signed them? I am quite sure that all the permanent officials at the present time are very much overworked. I may say further that there are, in my opinion, other irregularities in these Regulations and Instructions to which I may call your Lordships' attention on some future occasion. For the present, however, I will limit myself to Regulation No. 25, which appears to me to be the chief offender. If Regulation No. 25 stands and Parliament permits it to have the force of law, then a most mischievous precedent will have been created, because you will have passed a Regulation under which two Departments acted in defiance of statutes and placed themselves above the law.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will annul Regulation No. 25 which has been laid before Parliament in pursuance of the Act."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
*LORD FITZMAURICE: My Lords, nobody can be astonished when any question bearing upon county finance, however indirectly, claims the attention of your Lordships' House, because we are all aware that there is at the present time, not at all unnaturally, great anxiety in regard to local finance generally and the constant growth of our rates. Therefore, every proposal, however small, which directly or indirectly throws, or appears to throw, an increased

439
burden upon the ratepayers, is scanned with extreme jealousy in this House and in the House of Commons.
The noble Earl has dealt with the legal aspect of the matter as well as the financial aspect, and, in regard to the former, he has had the advantage, of which he has availed himself very fully, of delivering to the House a message from a high legal authority whose absence from his place this evening, and still more the reason, we all deeply regret. But I cannot help thinking that messages of this kind, even when coming from a high and much-respected source, are in many ways inconvenient, but chiefly because they place the House at a disadvantage. They partake of the nature of hearsay evidence, if I may take what may seem, perhaps, a technical objection, and are subject undoubtedly to the disadvantages which attach to all statements made upon the authority of a person who is not present and cannot be called upon to reply himself.
In regard to the legal aspect, though, of course, your Lordships cannot possibly attach that importance to any opinion of mine which attaches to the opinion of the noble and learned Earl, I think I shall be able to show without very great difficulty that my noble friend has, to say the least, very greatly overstated his case. A reference to Clause 10 of the Pensions Act will show that the Treasury have power to make Regulations, which shall have the force of law, and, amongst other things, provision can be made for the immediate payment of any expenses of the pensions committee which are ultimately to be paid by the Treasury. That is absolutely free from any possibility of contradiction. It appears on the face of those words that Parliament evidently contemplated payments being made in the first instance by one set of persons and the repayment by another. That is absolutely clear.
Therefore, what we have to consider is, is there anything in the Act which prohibits the Treasury from selecting and calling upon the county council, or the borough or urban district council, as the case may be, to make the advance in the first place? That point my noble friend Lord Camperdown did not attempt
440
to deal with seriously. He seems to think that, because there is no express direction in the Act to the local authority to pay, this Regulation is ultra vires. I put the exact converse to your Lordships. There are no words of limitation in the Act, and therefore, the Treasury had full power to select the authority to make the payment in the first place. That brings me to my second contention, which is that it would have been exceedingly inconvenient if the Treasury had selected any body other than the local authority to make the advance. The whole Act is based upon the co-operation of the Treasury and these local authorities.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No, no.
*LORD FITZMAURICE: I should have thought that was a matter not in dispute.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Will the noble Lord quote the clauses?
*LORD FITZMAURICE: I refer to the whole Act. I say it is based upon the harmonious working of these local authorities and their committees with the Treasury. The Act of Parliament itself certainly indicates the local authority as being the body to which the Treasury would look to make the advances.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Where is that in the Act?
*LORD FITZMAURICE: I understand that the noble Earl desires that there should be at once a system of advances to be made by the Treasury. That is contemplated. When a county council thinks that an inconvenience to them is likely to result from being called upon to advance money, they have power to apply to the Treasury for an advance. So far the time has been short, and no county council has made any such application, but in the course of the year I think it is exceedingly likely that the Treasury will receive applications. But there can be no doubt at all that, looked at from the taxpayers' point of view, it is convenient that at the start the arrangements should be made by te county councils. They are on the spot,

441
and are conversant with the actual necessities of the case. They will be able to judge easily, rapidly, and correctly what money is necessary, and then they can send in their claims to the Treasury. There will be no delay, I am informed, in dealing with these claims. They will be comparatively simple, and I believe that in all probability it will be found that very seldom will a period longer than three or four months at the most elapse between the time when the claim is received and when it is actually paid by the Treasury.
The noble Earl appears before your Lordships to-night as the vindicator of the Constitution, which is in danger through the wiles of a wicked Liberal Government, and he has called your Lordships' especial attention to the words in the regulation that this is—
"To take effect notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary."
Those words are really not of the immense importance which the noble Lord thinks. These Regulations are made under an Act of Parliament and they have the force of law, although no doubt the Local Government Act, 1888, expressly forbids any advance or payment out of local funds, except for certain definite purposes therein specified. The legal point on which I entirely rely is that, taking the clause upon which my noble friend and I have dwelt, there is full power to issue a Regulation of this kind calling for an advance from the local authority, notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of 1888, and the words which my noble friend has quoted are simply inserted "ex abundanti cantata."
This is not a terrific inroad, modelled upon the conduct of King James II., to destroy the sacred principles of the British Constitution, as my noble friend seems to imagine. I really do not like to use the expression because of the high legal authority he quoted, but really, if it had not been for that high authority, I should be inclined to say that this great legal discovery partook of the nature of a mare's nest; but I have no doubt that, if your Lordships desire it, we shall have the advantage of hearing legal opinions to which the
442
House will attach an importance which I know I cannot claim for my own.
Having dealt with the legal argument, the point I wish to put before the House is this, Is this a matter of such tremendous financial importance? There is to be an advance of the actually necessary sums for administrative purposes by these local authorities, and, as I have informed the House, there is to be a rapid system of repayment. These payments will be made out of the county fund. Those who are familiar with county council finance know that the different branches of expenditure are all out of the county fund which is one drawing account and which is broken up into different accounts at the end of the financial year for the purposes of audit. The whole of the expenditure is one drawing account. Even if the expenditure were considerable it is highly improbable that it would cause any over-draft on the county fund as a whole, especially as the repayments will come in exceedingly quickly. The whole thing is, in fact, a banking transaction. Therefore my noble friend, who thinks he has made a great discovery, has really made no discovery at all; the legal point is one which does not exist, and the financial one is so small that you require a microscope to detect it.
*LORD ROBERTSON: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I am not quite sure that there is a legal point in this discussion. It seems to me that, if there is, it far transcends accurate description by that phrase and rises in several aspects into the higher region of the Constitution. You have at stake, in this apparently technical matter, some of the most important and vital interests of the Constitution. You are proposing first, by these Regulations, to give to the Executive the right of deciding whether rates or taxes are in the first instance to bear a particular burden. You are doing more. These powers conferred by Parliament upon an executive body are familiar in the administration of the law, but they will always be found strictly confined to the region of administration. Till now it has never been suggested that Parliament proposed

443
to devolve upon the Executive the right of arranging for the convenience of the Treasury, not merely what fund shall be drawn upon, but whether the rates of each particular locality shall be drawn upon, for what they have avowed at the beginning is a purely Imperial purpose.
I own that I envy the graceful jocularity of the noble Lord who has just sat down, because I cannot help thinking that if this subject is explained to the constituencies some very ugly and awkward questions will arise. I do not refer to this particular subject of old-age pensions which has been so much vaunted as showing the vast interest that is taken in the poor. I refer to this, that if you allow these Regulations to stand you will authorise the doctrine that Parliament may devolve upon the Executive, because it is too lazy or has not the time to consider the question, some of the most important questions that can affect legislation. Why are those words—
"Any statute to the contrary notwithstanding"
put in? I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, if he takes part in the debate, to say what are those statutory enactments? The truth of the matter was admirably expressed by Lord Fitzmaurice when he explained that county councils and borough councils were purely statutory bodies, and had their hands tied by the Legislature. The statute which constitutes those bodies not merely directs them to apply their rates to certain specified purposes, but it forbids them to apply them to any other. But I ask further, where, affirmatively, are powers given to levy rates for this object? The Treasury comes gaily along and says: "Oh, never mind that; we call upon you to find so much money, and we tall you to levy rates for the purpose." That is so, because the purse must be filled; and unless it can be shown that the Treasury is possessed of the power of legalising expenditure and rating by county councils for anything it pleases, then I think this must stand condemned.
I cannot say that I ever saw administrative rules or regulations which bore on their face that they were gainsaying the Acts of the Legislature. The matter is not confined to that, because in criticising regulations of this kind you require
444
to find chapter and verse for the Act of devolution by the Legislature on the executive. The only words the noble Lord has appealed to are as to the provision to be made for the immediate payment of any expenses of the pensions committee, which are ultimately to be paid by the Treasury. I ask anyone who reads that provision whether he can seriously say that it was contemplated that the Treasury should look round, and as the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy has expressed it, select a suitable victim and call upon the county councils to make the advance. The easy confidence of the noble Lord in his own case was evidenced by his taking my noble friend Lord Camperdown into consultation on the subject by saying: "What would you suggest? What other body would you suggest?" I venture to think that if in either House of Parliament the proposal had been mooted as we now have it in black and white in these Rules, there would have been a great damping of enthusiasm in various quarters which have been more or less enthusiastic for this measure.
I protest altogether against discussing, as Lord Fitzmaurice did, questions of expediency. "What do you think could be better?" asks my noble friend. "Is it not very convenient?" All that is not for this stage of the proceedings at all. It ought to have been thought out at the outset where the money was to be got at first, and where it was ultimately to come from. This plan reverses the normal operation of legislation. It says that in the long run the Treasury will pay. I suppose the Treasury will look round for a victim—some roost—and requisition the money. I protest on these grounds against this being allowed to pass muster. I will not detain your Lordships longer at this late hour, but my brief observations must not be taken as adequate expression of my sense of the gravity of this occasion. I cannot help thinking, if this were held to be a precedent—and it must be once it has been done—that a Government with a large majority would say: "It does not very much matter what we put in the Bill; we will get our obedient Departments to work it out and choose the purse." I hope the House will rise to

445
the occasion and will peremptorily correct so manifest a deviation from sound Constitutional practice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, whether your Lordships approved—some of you, no doubt, did approve—or did not approve in spirit of the old-age pension scheme, I believe the general feeling of the House will be to give that scheme a fair chance, and not unnecessarily upon capricious grounds—I am not suggesting that the noble Earl was capricious—or upon inadequate grounds to try and disturb the machinery by which it is to be carried into effect. That is the first observation I offer to your Lordships. The second is that you should appreciate the real magnitude of the point now under discussion. The noble and learned Lord who has just spoken treated it as one of supreme importance, as if we were rising to the high summits of constitutional law.
The practical point is that provision has to be made by the Treasury for the immediate payment of the expenses of the committees, which are ultimately to be paid by the Treasury. The only question is, Who is to make the temporary advance? That is the only point. I cannot see myself that it involves any deep drafts upon the rates. It simply is a question what provision is to be made for a temporary advance which is to be repaid by the Treasury, and the Treasury has power to make an advance at once to the bodies which are to find the money. That is the whole magnitude of the point. As to the legal question, I confess to feeling some embarassment, because the noble and learned Earl, the late Lord Chancellor, for whose opinion I have the most unfeigned respect, has sent a message to your Lordships that this is all illegal and unconstitutional. Although I have always received the greatest courtesy at the hands of your Lordships, I do not profess to expect that my opinion will be taken as being equal to that of my predecessor, with his record of long service. I detest the idea of differing from a brother Judge in Parliament upon a question of law if it can possibly be avoided. I will, however, tell your Lordships frankly that when I was asked my opinion on this subject I thought
446
that what was done was within the Act. But I will not say that had I a consultation with Lord Halsbury it is not possible that I should alter my mind, nor will I say that if the noble and learned Earl had a consultation with me it is not possible that he would alter his. My view is that these legal questions ought to be settled by courts of law. Here is the opportunity. If a county council thinks itself aggrieved and that the Treasury were wrongly advised, let it go to a court of law and have the point decided there. That seems to me to be the better and more convenient course from a legal point of view.
I am not, of course, referring to the constitutional question or the question of policy. As to that question, it seems to me that the matter is a very small one—the advancing for a short time of something that has to be repaid. It would be a serious matter if it were laid down that, whenever power is given by Act of Parliament to make rules, those rules are unconstitutional if they come into conflict with any section of a preceding Act of Parliament. We have a perfect labyrinth of statutes on every sort of subject, and if, on making a new departure like this and giving an authority an unbounded discretion, any rule which conflicted with some preceding Act of Parliament were declared unconstitutional, Parliament would be very likely to thwart its own purpose. It is under an Act of Parliament that these rules and regulations are made. If Parliament does not think proper to give power to make the Regulations, it can withhold it; and if it wishes to limit that power, it can limit it. I say, with the greatest respect, that I should like to see the question of the legality of this proceeding tried by a court of law. The courts of law are open. If it is wrong, it can be stopped by law. My own opinion is otherwise; but I do think the courts of law are the proper tribunal.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I wish to make one observation, and I do so as emphatically as I can. I wish to assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that, although many of us regarded the passing of the Old-Age Pensions Act

447
with grave misgivings—misgivings which have not been entirely removed—nothing is further from our thoughts than to obstruct the application of that Act, or to increase the difficulties, and they will be very formidable difficulties, of those who will be called upon to administer it. We desire, as the noble and learned Lord does, that the Act should have a fair trial. But when your Lordships' House insisted that the Regulations made under the Act should be laid on the Table of the Houses of Parliament, we took what was no mere idle or formal precaution; and I conceive it is the duty of this House to examine those Regulations and to consider very carefully indeed whether they should be allowed to remain unchallenged.
We have been told on the part of His Majesty's Government that, so far as what I think has been called the practical grievance or the financial grievance occasioned by these Regulations is concerned, that grievance is not a very substantial one. I admit that there is some force in that argument. I do not believe that any one stands to be very heavily mulcted by the operation of these Regulations. But when I am told that the matter is such a very small one I am reminded of an episode in one of Marryat's novels which was a great joy to us in our boyhood. The passage was connected with the somewhat irregular arrival of a little infant, and the mother pleaded, in extenuation, that it was a very little one.
Now I fully understand what is desired by His Majesty's Government under these Regulations. These pension committees are to be called into existence, and it is quite evident that they must be put in funds by one means or another. That is a very obvious view, and the Act, as we have been told this evening, clearly contemplates that means should be discovered of putting them in funds so far as their immediate necessities are concerned, and upon the understanding that the money is to be ultimately refunded by the Treasury. So far all is plain and easy. But then we come to the procedure adopted by His Majesty's Government in order
448
to give effect to this purpose, and we are met by the challenge, "If you think our procedure bad, can you suggest a better one?" I rather object to that argument. I do not conceive that it is our business to explain to the public how these matters can be most conveniently arranged. But I shall have a word of suggestion even upon that point.
We take, however, two objections to the Regulations as they stand. In the first place, under those Regulations the Treasury, acting with the Local Government Board, takes it upon itself to issue orders to, and to interfere with, the county councils in a manner which appears to me to go very far beyond the spirit of the Local Government Act of 1888, from which these councils derive their powers. We have been told that the Old-Age Pensions Act is based upon the co-operation of the Treasury with the local authorities. I am not quite sure that the terms of the Act quite bear out that statement. I have looked through it and I find in it only one reference to the county councils. The county councils are required to call these pension committees into existence. Having done that, the county councils step into the background, and it is the aid of the Treasury and public funds that are invoked.
Then the second objection is that which has been taken upon constitutional grounds, and there I am bound say it does seem to me that the point, even though it be in itself a small one, does raise a Constitutional question of the very highest importance; a question, moreover, which, as has been truly said this evening, is every day more frequently and more urgently brought under our attention—I mean the question of the extent to which you can give a public Department the right of overriding the law as it is found in the Statute-book. I rather understood the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to suggest that the words to which we have called attention—I mean the words which declare that the funds are to be provided out of the county fund notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary—were put in as a somewhat formal and not very important precaution. I regard them rather more seriously, and I venture

449
humbly to suggest to your Lordships that those words were surplusage unless it was intended by means of them to give this Department the power of going beyond the scope of the Acts of Parliament which regulated their proceedings.
We on this side of the House remain of opinion that those words do involve a grave irregularity which it is the duty of the House to take notice of. We feel, moreover, that we are by no means paralysing the operation of the Act when we desire that these pension committees should be financed from some source other than the county fund; because the Regulation itself is the two paragraphs which immediately follow, provides a means of financing them without the intervention of the county fund. A very trifling alteration would enable these pension committees to be supplied with the funds necessary for the performance of their duties, and there should be no difficulty in arranging that those funds should be provided without any straining of the law. For these reasons, if my noble friend goes to a division I shall certainly support him.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, I do not mean at this late hour to follow any of the very interesting arguments we have heard with regard to the legal or constitutional question; but I do not think it would be right that I should remain altogether silent inasmuch as this matter has been discussed at considerable length by both the Parliamentary Committee and the executive council of the County Councils Association. The executive council only yesterday passed a resolution which declared that the regulations appear to exceed the powers given to the Treasury by the Act, to cast on the finances of county councils expenses which the Act did not cast on them, and to impose duties on their servants which the Act in no way authorised, and recommended that the executive council should support any action that might be taken to bring the matter before Parliament. This resolution was not brought forward in any spirit of hostility to the Old-Age Pensions Act. Indeed, it was mentioned in the discussion that the
450
association had no wish to throw any difficulty in the way of the administration of the Act. So strongly did the executive council feel about this matter that they purposely left out any allusion to other parts of the regulations on which some criticisms had been made, and passed unanimously the Resolution to which I have referred. There is, under these Regulations, to be thrown on the county councils what they believe to be an illegal charge, and it is for that reason that the county councils are of opinion that the Regulations ought to be protested against by all the means in their power. It has been said that this is a small point. It may be a small point if we are to take all the assurances that have been given by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy. But let me point out that these Regulations not only throw this charge upon county councils, but provide—and I think this is adding insult to injury—that the money shall be repaid to the councils at such times and in such manner as the Treasury think fit. Moreover, no interest is to be paid for the money so advanced.
LORD FITZMAURICE: I was able to give an assurance that these advances would be repaid within a short while. It would always be well within the financial year.
LORD BELPER: I fully accept the noble Lord's assurances. I have no doubt the noble Lord will do all he can to get his assurances carried out, but they have not the effect which these Regulations will have after they are approved by Parliament. I cannot myself see what power the county councils have to raise a rate for this purpose. So far from their being mentioned in the Bill in harmonious conjunction with the Treasury, there is only one clause which refers in any way whatever to them, and that is the clause under which they have to appoint the pensions committees, after which their powers absolutely cease. I can assure the House that the county councils feel very strongly about the matter.
On Question,

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Morley, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Northumberland, D.

Northbrook, E.

Dunboyne, L.

Onslow, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Faber, L.

Bath, M.

Hindlip, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Salisbury, M.

Falkland, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Goschen, V.

Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

Camperdown, E.

Hood, V.

Leigh, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore).

Macnaughten, L.

Cawdor, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cromer, E.

Robertson, L.

Dartrey, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Sanderson, L.

Denbigh, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Fortescue, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Stanmore, L.

Harrowby, E.

Belper, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Lauderdale, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Londesborough, E.

Clinton, L.

Waleran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Russell, E.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Glantawe, L.

Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.)

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Herschell, L.

Lochee, L.

Allendale, L.

Lucas, L.

Armistead, L.

Marchamley, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Blyth, L.

O'Hagen, L.

Burghclere, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Saye and Sele, L.

Carrington, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Chichester, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Welby, L.

Craven, E.

Eversley, L.

The said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at a Quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a Quarter past Four o'clock.