Lords Sitting of 21 July 1909

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).
A Message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room C. on Monday next at a quarter before Four o'clock.
GLAMORGAN WATER BOARD BILL.
A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
EDGWARE AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
The Lord Chancellor informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 7th instant and Wednesday last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
SHREWSBURY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a: An Amendment made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
THAMES TUNNEL (NORTH AND SOUTH WOOLWICH) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL (SUPER ANNUATION,&c.) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
LISBURN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
GLAMORGAN WATER BOARD BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Wharncliffe be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Glantawe; read, and agreed to.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON rose to ask the Lord President of the Council what steps had been taken to define the spheres of the Boards of Agriculture and Education respectively in the matter of agricultural education; to call attention to the Tables of Expenditure for Agricultural Education [Cd. 4569], of the present year; and to move for a Return showing the figures in column (c) of Tables I. and II. for the years 1906–7 and 1908–9.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting the Question which stands in my name I must ask for your. Lordships' indulgence because agricultural education is a very dull subject, and I am chiefly concerned with criticising tables of figures. Last December I called the attention of your Lordships' House to the Report of the Committee presided over by Lord Reay with regard to agricultural education in England and Wales, and great stress was laid in that Report on the necessity of increased grants for agricultural education. I called the attention of the House to a college in which my local authority is interested, and which is in danger of having its doors closed if more money is not available for agricultural education. We are waiting to see what action the Government will take on the Report of Lord Reay's Committee before we decide the fate of this college. But this is not a special case; it is the same all over the country. If we look at statistics, we find that since the year 1902, when the new Education Act came into force, such heavy charges have been thrown on the rates that local authorities spend£10,000 a year less on agricultural education than they did then. A deplorable feature in the situation is that the agricultural counties are the poorest counties; therefore, the counties which want more agricultural education receive less, and that is a matter which can only be remedied by grants.
Lord Reay's Committee gave very interesting statistics with regard to what is done in foreign countries for agricultural education. They told us that the Kingdom of Prussia, which has a population about the same as that of England and Wales, gives£100,000 a year, exclusive of local sums, for agricultural education. France gives£150,000. In South Australia one college receives from the State a grant of£9,000, which is nearly equal to the whole of the sums that are at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture; and in Ireland over£100,000 a year is given for the same purpose, exclusive of what comes from the rates. But Lord Reay's Committee could not tell us what sum was spent in England and Wales because statistics were not available, and I ventured last December to ask the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he could grant a Return showing the amount spent in England and Wales. I made that request in order that we might compare what we do with what other countries do, and show, as I think we could show, that we lag behind in this very important matter. The noble Earl said he would try and grant a Return. Last Easter I put a Question on the Paper and gave notice to move for such a Return, but before the Question was reached I received a letter from Mr. Runciman telling me that he could not give the Return in precisely the way I had asked for it, but that he would give it in some form which he hoped would be of service. The result was this Command Paper No. 4,569, to which I would call the attention of the House.
The title of the Paper is "Tables of Expenditure for Agricultural Education (apart from Secondary Schools and Elementary Schools)." I call attention to the title because I am afraid the contents have very little relevancy. The Paper is taken up mostly with explanations of the difficulties of granting information. Every foreign country can give this information, yet apparently it is difficult to give it here. I venture to suggest that the difficulties come chiefly from the Board of Education; the Board have surrounded their grants with so many regulations and restrictions, and have entangled them with so many other subjects that it becomes exceedingly difficult to disentangle them. I would ask the noble Viscount to turn to page 5. Table I., which is given on this
652
page, is headed "Exchequer Grants in aid of Universities and University Colleges which provide Agricultural Education." The first column is the column of the Board of Agriculture, and the total grants amount to£8,880. It is perfectly clear how this money is expended; there is no question about it, except that it is ridiculously insignificant.
In the next column are given the grants paid by the Board of Education in aid of professional and technological work, and they amount to the more respectable figure of£21,076. I was very surprised when I saw this column at the amount of money expended presumably in aid of agricultural education, and therefore I wrote to the Registrar or the Vice-Chancellor of each of the Universities and University colleges mentioned, and asked what proportion of this money was spent on agricultural education. They were all good enough to answer me, and I can assure His Majesty's Government that not one penny of this£21,076 has been spent on, or has anything to do with, agricultural education at all. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with the correspondence, but it is at the disposal of the noble Lord if he wishes to see it. I will merely quote the letter from the Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University, who writes—
"In making our claim for grants in respect of technical work we have carefully excluded all agricultural students from our list. Consequently the sum received by Leeds University would be absolutely unaffected if we had not a single agricultural student in the University. Therefore it is preposterous for the Board of Education to claim that this grant is in any sense a grant in aid of agriculture."
I would like to quote to your Lordships the opinion of Lord Barnard, who is very much interested in this subject but is unable to be present to-day. He is chairman of Armstrong College (Durham University), and he states that, as far as that college is concerned, the Return of the Board of Education is misleading and ought to be withdrawn or corrected.
The next column in Table I. refers to Treasury grants. I think it is common knowledge to anyone who knows the subject of agricultural education that these Treasury grants have very little to do with agricultural education. I received a communication from Aberystwyth University College, in which it was stated that not one penny

653
of the£4,000 which is credited to them had anything to do with agricultural education; and apart from a few hundred pounds which may be the proportion of the salaries of teachers who give some of their time to agricultural lectures, I do not believe any portion of the total of£42,900 under this head has anything to do with agricultural education. The last column in this Table is merely the aggregate grants as shown in the three previous columns, and is, consequently, useless. Therefore, on this Table I say that there are the Board of Agriculture grants of£8,880, and there are, perhaps, a few hundred pounds from the Treasury, but nothing whatever from the Board of Education.
I would now direct attention to Table II., which refers to Exchequer grants in aid of agricultural education in county areas. Again in the first column we have the grants from the Board of Agriculture. They are perfectly clear and quite insignificant, amounting to a total of£3,350. Then we have the Board of Education grants amounting to£7,847, and I should like to criticise that having regard to the value of the previous column of the Board of Education. The Board of Education in the year 1906 issued some new technical instruction regulations, and under section 34 of those regulations they produced a new system of giving grants for agriculture and other purposes. They called it the "block grant system." It was an inclusive grant to local authorities for the local authorities to decide in what way it should be spent, with the approval, of course, of the Board of Education. In his evidence before Lord Reay's Committee, Mr. Ogilvie, who represented the Board of Education, laid great stress on this block grant system, and it might be gathered from his evidence that the Board relied largely upon it in order to develop their system of agricultural education. If you look at this Table you see that the counties in receipt of money under the block grant system are indicated, and if you add up the money given in this column under the block grant system as opposed to what is given otherwise, you find that the block grant system comprises the major part of the money. Out of the£7,847 more than£4,000 was given under the block grant system. I contend that this money does not go to agriculture at all.
Take the county of Wiltshire, which receives the largest amount in this column—
654£692. Before the block grant system was instituted the county of Wiltshire was only receiving£55. Therefore, this is a great advance for that county, and one might suppose that the accounts of the county of Wiltshire would show a corresponding increase in agricultural education. But what are the facts? The expenditure of the county of Wiltshire on agricultural education is very nearly what it was five years ago; consequently none of this£692 has gone to agricultural education. I venture to suggest that the block grant system does not aid agricultural education at all, but, as in the county of Wiltshire, the money has merely gone to the relief of the rates. The same remark applies to East Suffolk. I believe none of the money credited to East Suffolk under the block grant system has been spent on agricultural education. I think the block grant system has proved unsuitable to the agricultural community. I know that in my own county the regulations with which it is hedged are extremely tiresome, and that, so far as our farmers are concerned, we have never been able to make use of the block grant system or to get any money out of it. You cannot treat farmers as you would a class of boys learning wood-carving or young ladies taking drawing lessons. You cannot give them grants according to the number of their attendances and according to the hours they are there per week. They have their business to attend to, and they have a long way to come, and their business naturally makes their hours very varied. Therefore, the block grant system has proved a failure, and I think it should not be relied upon, as it apparently is, by the Board of Education to increase agricultural education. At the same time, Lord Reay's Committee reported very strongly in favour of itinerant lectures, and it would be a great misfortune if they were not assisted.
There is another criticism I wish to make of the Board of Education in this respect. The Board of Education grants are very unfair in their incidence. I will take a large agricultural county, the county of Norfolk. At the last census the agricultural population of the county was 47,000, and the grant from the Board of Education for agricultural purposes is only£46; but the county of Hereford, with an agricultural population of only 15,000, has a grant of£391. There is another way of criticising these Board of Education regulations. It may be said that the Board spend their

655
money in proportion to what the local authorities spend, but even in that way their system does not hold water. Lancashire spends£7,600 a year on education, and the grant is£27, together with£242 for a small agricultural college. Meanwhile the county of Cheshire, which only spends£4,700, gets a grant of£587. There is neither justice nor reason in the way in which these grants are allocated. I need not call your Lordships' attention to the last column of this Table—"Board of Education grants for further education (including technical) in agricultural areas." That is not agricultural education and has nothing to do with it. It may include singing, wood-carving, and anything else.
I have wearied your Lordships with these figures in order to make some estimate, if one can, from this Paper, of what the Government really does spend on agricultural education. Under the first Table I find that the Board of Agriculture grants amount to£8,880, with a hundred or two more from the Treasury—say£9,000 in all. Then we have under Table II. Board of Agriculture grants amounting to£3,350, and if you deduct the block grants from the Board of Education table you have a further£3,500—that makes a sum total of money spent on agricultural education in England and Wales of the ridiculous figure of about£16,000. I do not think it is fair on the farmers of this country, who have a great deal drawn from them through the rates, that they should receive so little from His Majesty's Government in comparison with what is spent on the promotion of agricultural education by foreign countries. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, who is setting up so many small holdings, will, I am sure, appreciate that fact. I believe that this deplorable result is largely due to the fact that you have these two Departments—the Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture—who are not in agreement with one another. At any rate, there is a great deal of overlapping and underlapping, and agricultural colleges fall between both and receive very little assistance. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture told us last December that there were intricate questions which must be thrashed out before any system could be devised for complete co-ordination of agricultural education. I know that in my own county we have been refused assistance by the Board of Education because questions between that Board and the
656
Board of Agriculture were under consideration. That was nearly a year ago, and I hope the noble Viscount or the noble Earl will be able to give some information to-day with regard to an arrangement between the two bodies.
I am not going into the spheres of influence suggested by Lord Reay's Committee and the delimitation between the two Departments; but I will merely say this, that as the Board of Agriculture advise the farmer, my humble opinion is that they should also train the farmer, and that the line should be drawn below the agricultural college and above the evening school. At any rate, I can say that it will not be a popular matter for farmers if their colleges are taken over by the Board of Education. Here is a resolution of the Farmers' Club on that point—
"The influence of the Board of Education has not been felt, and there has certainly been no driving power in connection with technical training in agricultural matters."
The agricultural produce of this country amounts to from 150 millions to 200 millions a year, and it really is a matter of importance that the utmost scientific knowledge should be given to its development.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other day that there was to be a Development Fund of£200,000, and that some of it, at any rate, was to be used for agricultural colleges. Perhaps His Majesty's Government can tell us whether that money is going to be spent through the Board of Education or through the Board of Agriculture. I have put down a Motion for Papers. After what I have heard from the Universities I will not press for the figures in Column (c) of Table I., but having regard to the necessity of criticising the development of block grants I do move for the figures in column (c) of Table II. I move for these figures in order to ascertain the progress of the block grant, and when we have got them we shall be able to see what effect the block grant has had on agricultural education. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return showing the figures in Column (c) of Table II. of the Tables of Expenditure for Agricultural Education [Cd. 4569.] for the years 1906–7 and 1908–9.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, my noble friend the President of the Council has asked me to reply to this Question for him, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will do so. I hope my noble friend opposite will forgive me if I do not go in detail into the points that have been raised in his interesting speech, but I hope I shall be able to reassure him that some progress has been made. I am happy to say that we have this morning arrived at some understanding which will be of advantage to both Departments. The Board of Education and the Board of Agriculture have arranged general lines of direct co-operation in relation to the educational work carried on for rural areas, and in particular with a view to the improvement and extension of specialised instruction in all grades bearing on agriculture, and the maintenance of a close relation between such instruction and the practice and progress of the various sections of the industry. An inter-departmental committee of officers of the two Boards will consider questions that may arise as to correlation of work and of grants. It is further proposed to bring outside agricultural opinion into direct contact with the Board of Education by constituting a rural education conference consisting mainly of representatives of county councils and of agricultural associations. At the present moment I am unable to give any more details of the proposal, but everything is working most harmoniously between the two Departments, and I hope at an early date to be able to give some further details to noble Lords who take an interest in this subject. As to the Motion for a Return showing the figures for the years 1906–7 and 1908–9, my right hon. friend Mr. Runciman wishes me to say that the Board of Education are laying on the Table the figures asked for by my noble friend as regards the year 1906–7, but the figures asked for in respect of the year 1908–09 are not yet available, as that year does not expire till the end of the present month. I hope that the statement I have made will be satisfactory to the noble Lord.
LORD BELPER: My Lords, it seems to me that the criticisms which my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton has made on this Return are at all events worthy of some reply. To my mind, my noble friend proved conclusively that this Paper,
658
which is issued on the responsibility of the Board of Education, which is a Parliamentary Paper, and which will have the effect, if it is not challenged, of leading the country to believe that very considerable sums are given for agricultural education, is entirely misleading; and I am bound to say I had expected that some attempt would be made to make out a case in answer to the undoubtedly strong criticisms made by my noble friend.
This is a matter of the utmost importance. The Return, if it is not challenged, will be relied upon, and we shall be told afterwards, if the figures in the Return are accepted, that we are doing very little with the large sums of money given by the Board for agricultural education. The matter is of such great importance that I should like to dwell for a moment on a particular part of the Paper to which my noble friend has not referred—Column (d) on page 8, which professes to set out the grants for agricultural education in the different counties. That column totals a sum of£23,377, and, if my information is correct, a very small part indeed of that can in any way be said to be devoted to agricultural education. I have said that the Return is misleading. I do not wish to say that we are being purposely misled, but I do say this, that at all events the explanation with regard to that column is a very remarkable one indeed. I would ask noble Lords who have this Paper in their hands to turn to page 7, where it is explained how these figures are arrived at. It is there stated that—
"the grants paid under the regulations for the year 1907–8 for all schools and classes situate in areas predominantly agricultural have been separated out, and the figures thus arrived at for each county will be found in Column (d) of Table II. These figures, of course, relate not merely to the work done in classes in specialised agricultural technology …but include all other county provision of technical and further education for these agricultural areas."
That is to say, these specific figures which we suppose are for agricultural education include all the grants given for other subjects, supposing they are in what are called "predominantly agricultural areas." This is the process. A certain number of areas are picked out, not by the counties themselves but by the Board of Agriculture, as being predominantly agricultural, and then all the grants within those areas for any purpose whatever are set down in the

659
Return as money given and received for agricultural education.
Let me go a little further and show how this works out in practice. Having some knowledge of the money which we receive in my own county—the county of Nottingham—I was astonished to find, in looking over this Paper, that under heads (a), (b), (c), and (d) a considerable sum was paid to the county of Nottingham for agricultural education which certainly is not received or used for that purpose. In column (d) I find that the grants to Nottingham are set out as£620. I have taken the trouble to get the officials responsible in my county to work out the figures, and out of that£620 we can only trace£532. The Paper, however, admits that the figures are very approximate; therefore, I suppose we may consider the£620 as pretty accurate. How is this£532 accounted for? I find that the "predominantly agricultural areas" contain a number of places which are not predominantly agricultural at all. There are several places containing a large number of miners, and I find that the greater part of the grants which make up the sum of£532 are for mining, engineering, and matters of that sort, and the only sum which can be traced as going to rural education is£84. If the figures in respect of the other counties are as accurate as these figures, you may safely divide the total of£23,377 by about seven, and then you will be much nearer the mark as to the amount that is given for agricultural education.
One word on another point. I very much regret that my noble friend Lord Reay, who was chairman of the Agricultural Education Committee, is not able to be in his place to-night. He asked me to represent him as far as I could, but I am fully aware that it would have given much more weight if the noble Lord himself had been here to speak on these matters especially on those which refer to the manner in which agricultural education should be carried on in the future. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture stated that an arrangement was being come to between the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education. I sincerely hope that this arrangement will not be drawn up in a spirit adverse to the recommendation of the Committee of which I was a member and over which
660
Lord Reay presided. I would call attention to the particular part of the Report which contains their recommendations with regard to this matter. The Committee stated—
"The Committee have come to the conclusion that scientific and practical instruction in agricultural subjects when provided by Universities, agricultural colleges, farm institutes, and winter schools by means of special classes should be under the Board of Agriculture, whilst all instruction in agricultural subjects forming part of courses in such primary or secondary or evening schools as are in definite communication with elementary schools should be under the Board of Education."
I refer to that because that proposal has been supported by almost everybody interested in agriculture in this country. The County Councils Association passed a Resolution in favour of that division. Most of the great agricultural bodies supported it also, and the teaching bodies, such as the colleges themselves and the Universities, were also in favour of that division; and if the arrangement which has been arrived at is likely to be adverse to that decision and to continue the dual control which is now so unfortunate for agriculture, I am afraid it will be injurious to the establishment of a national system of education, which, to my mind, is one of the most important questions now before the country. It would be very difficult to have a national system of education, going up from the bottom to the top rung of the ladder and giving those interested in agriculture every opportunity of receiving the highest possible education afforded by the Universities, if there are to be two controlling bodies, one body having part of the system under its control, while the other body deals with a different part of the same subject.
I am aware that we have no information to go upon as to what the proposals of the Government are with regard to this matter. I hope that this Development Grant is going to afford a substantial sum, which will really start a national system of education. If that is done, and if the system is put under the Board of Agriculture, who are in direct touch with the farmers, to whom the farmers look for assistance, especially in the scientific part of their work, and in whom the farmers have expressed their confidence by repeated resolutions, then I think there is a chance in this country of a great development, which will be of the greatest possible benefit to the agricultural interests of this

661
country. I should deprecate any solution which would be likely to continue the present unfortunate state of affairs.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, in the course of his observations apologised for the dulness of the subject which he was bringing before your Lordships' House. I cannot help thinking he was too apologetic. The subject is one, to my mind, of immense importance, and a most interesting subject. I hope many of your Lordships have looked, as my two noble friends evidently have looked, carefully into the Report of Lord Reay's Committee. It is an extremely painful Report to read. It appears to me to show conclusively that in this country we have fallen lamentably behind other countries in what we have done for the agricultural education of our people. I will not enter into details, but throughout the Report you will find evidence of the neglect in this country of agricultural education both elementary and higher, and the result is that, as the Committee have to tell us, a desire for knowledge of this kind is not a marked attribute of the agricultural classes in England. How should it be a marked attribute amongst the agricultural classes when the Government has shown such extraordinary indifference?
The Committee go on to report that the agricultural system pursued in many parts of the country is of a most thriftless and unscientific character. And they go as far as this—they say that every branch of agriculture in this country is capable of improvement. That is a very serious indictment; and when they come to the question of the teachers who are entrusted with the task of imparting this kind of education to the children in the agricultural districts, the Committee tell us that the education given in these schools leads those who receive it to forsake the land. At a time when the noble Earl opposite is doing so much to attract people back to the land, is it not rather absurd that another Department of the State should be giving them an education which leads them, not to the land, but to forsake the land? I think my two noble friends showed conclusively that even the not very extravagant amounts which appear in this Return as spent upon agricultural education do not really find their way to
662
that education at all. The figures are entirely misleading, and my noble friend assures us that for the whole of England and Wales something like£16,000 only is spent on agricultural education—a startling and unsatisfactory figure, if it be correct.
The noble Earl opposite gave us, as usual, a very conciliatory answer. It appears, however, that only this morning His Majesty's Government were able to come to a conclusion of some kind upon this most momentous question. I gather from the noble Earl that His Majesty's Government are determined that there is to be co-operation between the Department of Agriculture and the Board of Education with a view to the improvement of the agricultural education given. They desire closer relations between the two Boards. There is to be an inter-departmental committee and a rural education conference. Well, these are very important suggestions and indicate a most favourable spirit on the part of the two Departments concerned, but they do not really carry us very much further in the direction of the kind of knowledge which my noble friends desire to obtain. The noble Earl was entirely silent upon one of the most important points. Do His Majesty's Government under this new system, or do they not, intend to adopt the recommendation made by Lord Reay's Committee—the recommendation, I mean, that higher agricultural education should be under the Board of Agriculture and elementary agricultural education under the Board of Education? That really is a question of policy, and although the Report of Lord Reay's Committee was laid before Parliament in the month of July, 1908, exactly a year ago, His Majesty's Government appear not even at the conference of this morning to have been able to face that question of fundamental policy.
Nor, again, did the noble Earl, so far as I was able to follow him, say one syllable upon the question of funds. Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to follow the recommendation of the Committee and to be a little more liberal in their dealings with agricultural education? Of course, I do not at this moment expect the noble Earl to come down and promise a colossal expenditure on agricultural education, but I think a few encouraging words, after what was said by the noble Lord who moved the

663
Motion, might well have been spoken. I must say that this question does seem to me a very critical one at the present time, because it is quite clear that in the view of His Majesty's Government the time has come for replacing the system of land tenure with which we are familiar in this country by a different system—a system which will place the cultivator of the land in a position of much greater independence and much more closely under the Government and less under his landlord than heretofore. If that is going to be your policy in the future, does it not follow that it is your duty to do all you possibly can to educate those people who are really going to be their own masters upon their own holdings? The whole position is, I think, wisely summed up in a single sentence by my friend Sir Horace Plunkett. He said, in a paper published recently, that what we want in these days are not merely economic holdings, but an economic system and an economic man to carry it out. And you will not get the economic man to carry out the economic system unless the Government of this country take some pains to give him a proper education.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD rose to call attention to the present methods of selecting and appointing Justices of the Peace, and to move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report whether any and what steps should be taken to facilitate the selection of the most suitable persons to be Justices of the Peace irrespective of creed and political opinion."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I trust that you will allow me to occupy your attention for a short time while I bring to your notice a subject which I think ought to be regarded as one of considerable importance. I say of considerable importance because anything that affects the administration of justice in this country must be of great interest to everyone who has care for our institutions, and the nomination and selection of justices is certainly most directly connected with that administration. The position of Justice of the Peace is an ancient and most responsible one. For some six hundred years Justices of the Peace have been nominated by the Crown to administer justice. Justices
664
of the Peace are Judges of Record, and, as your Lordships know, have responsible judicial duties to discharge. They can sentence accused persons to months of imprisonment, and may determine whether a man shall be tried for serious offences, including murder. Then there are their administrative duties which, though diminished by recent legislation, still require the exercise of great discretion.
I ask you to consider what manner of man it is who ought to occupy this office? I am aware that it is not possible to set up a very high standard, but the standard ought to be one of sufficiency. Justices have to expound and administer the Statutes of the Realm. They ought to be literate; they ought to be intelligent—and in intelligence I include the possession of commonsense—and, lastly, they ought to be persons of undoubted high personal character. Those are the only qualifications that I claim should be possessed by Justices of the Peace. Recent legislation has got rid of the property qualification affecting county Justices, and that unhappy term "social position" gives way before the increase of democratic influence and power. I am led to the conclusion that the qualifications to which I have referred are little attended to in connection with the nomination of persons for this position. For a period of seven years I had to deal with the nomination of borough Justices in the county of Lancaster, and I do not know that those who made the recommendations to me took any trouble to inquire into these qualifications.
The system pursued in the selection of Justices—I am speaking for the moment of borough Justices—is very definite. It seems to be this. The first step of a person who desires to be made a Justice of the Peace is to become an active politician, and then, having served his Party thoroughly, and, as someone once wrote to me, having done "a great deal of work after dark," he appeals to the local party manager. He says, "I have done good work for the Party. The other side made so many Justices for political reasons, and, being entitled to that position, I ask you to see that I secure it." Then the local party manager appeals to the general party manager of the district; the matter is carried forward and the aid of the Member of Parliament is enlisted, the assurance being given that "Mr. So-and-so wishes to be made a Justice of the Peace," and that he really is "a first-rate fellow," having "worked for us so very hard." Then the

665
Member of Parliament comes into play, and I wish to say that some Members have, to my knowledge, done their best to frustrate the system I am attacking; but the opportunity for so doing is seldom given, and the result is that upon the word of the party agent the Member of Parliament has to appeal to the Lord Chancellor and say, "I ask you, on behalf of my local party interests, to appoint this man; if you do not, I may lose my seat."
My noble and learned friends Lord Halsbury and the Lord Chancellor could tell the House of the difficulties in the situation. I have only heard of the difficulties that are encountered. But I know that the late Lord Herschell and also Lord Halsbury and the present Lord Chancellor have, in taking the course which they considered best in the public interest, been censured and criticised by their political friends because it was said they had not done enough in the interests of their Party. Is this a satisfactory state of things? Year by year we are adding to the responsibilities and duties of the Justices, and year by year I am afraid the political influence in their appointment is increasing and the proper qualifications lost sight of. When I say that I mean that the influence is increasing amongst those who originate these nominations; I do not for a moment say that the influence is not discounted by those who have to make the ultimate choice.
The importance of maintaining a high standard on the Bench is clear to anyone who has had to deal practically with this subject. If you continue to appoint men insufficient to the discharge of the duties of the office you lower the standard of the magisterial Bench. As has often been said, the strength of the law lies in the respect in which it is holden, and the strength of the administration of the law lies in the respect in which the administrators are held. When I endeavoured to search out suitable men to go upon the Bench I constantly received the reply from the individual to whom I offered the position that he would be glad to be made a county Justice but that he would not sit upon the borough Bench because in that case he would have to occupy a position side by side with men totally unfit to discharge the duty of the office. The standard and sufficiency of many borough Benches in this county has been falling
666
lower and lower owing to the present system of selection.
A word or two in respect of the selection of county Justices. I approach the question of the county Justices in a somewhat different spirit. There is some little misunderstanding of the relative position of a Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor. I do not know how better to define the exact position occupied by Lords Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor than by quoting a definition which was given in your Lordships' House in 1836. In that concise language which that great man who was then the Leader of the Opposition, the Duke of Wellington, so often employed, he defined the position in this way—
"I know, and I believe that the Lords Lieutenant in general know, that the right to appoint the magistrates is exclusively in the hands of the person holding the Great Seal. Courtesy and custom have enabled the Lords Lieutenant to recommend to the person holding the Great Seal the names of gentlemen who were to be magistrates."
That, I believe, is the exact relative position. Whilst a Lord Lieutenant has power to recommend I take it that cannot be the exclusive right to recommend. I know that many think it would be objectionable that they should have competition in recommendation, but at any rate the House of Commons has decided that matter so far as a Resolution of the House of Commons can decide it, because in the year 1893 a Resolution was passed that—
"In the opinion of this House it is expedient that the appointment of county magistrates should no longer be made by the Lord Chancellor for the time being only on the recommendation of Lords Lieutenant."
I believe great smoothness of action has taken place. Great consideration and a great desire to avoid friction have been shown by different Lords Lieutenant, and they have been met by the Lord Chancellor of the day, who has done his best to act as far as possible upon the recommendation, but not upon the exclusive recommendation of the Lords Lieutenant. If the exclusive recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant were acted upon it would make Lords Lieutenant responsible for every appointment. That is not the case. The Crown makes the appointment and the Lord Chancellor is responsible for the due exercise of the Crown's power. Therefore it is the Lord Chancellor's duty primarily

667
to secure that a sufficient number of Justices are appointed and that they shall be sufficient also in capacity.
But let us consider the duty cast upon the Lord Chancellor. There are nearly 21,000 Justices of the Peace in England and Wales and 3,000 commissions of the peace. The Lord Chancellor has to make inquiries such as he can and see that the necessities of each community in each petty sessional division, are met, and that there is a sufficiency of qualified Justices. Apart from the political question in the nomination of Justices, surely there is something to be said in favour of assisting the Lord Chancellor in the exercise of this important duty. There are two important points to bear in mind—first, to remove the selection of Justices from the area of political qualifications—that is the first demand that I think a citizen of this country has a right to make—and, in the second place, to find some method by which the Lord Chancellor should receive assistance in selection aiding his knowledge, which is not local, and bringing to bear upon it an impartial and unaffected judgment. If I am asked for my remedy, I reply that it is an impartial inquiry. If these evils do exist, is it not our duty to see if some remedy cannot be found for them? I therefore venture, with great respect, to commend this Motion to your Lordships' consideration.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report whether any and what steps should be taken to facilitate the selection of the most suitable persons to be Justices of the Peace irrespective of creed and political opinion.—(Lord James of Hereford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I have not had the advantage of hearing every word that my noble and learned friend said because he addressed himself to a more attractive portion of the House; but I think your Lordships may consider it convenient that I should say at this stage what I desire to say upon this subject, and if any question arises, anything in the nature of a complaint, I am quite certain your Lordships will allow me afterwards to give any explanation that may be necessary.
But I have not heard from my noble and learned friend, so far as I did hear what he said, any serious charge. I have myself
668
desired an inquiry into this subject for upwards of two years, and my noble friend Lord James of Hereford has repeatedly suggested to me his desire for an inquiry on the grounds which I imagine he has stated to-night. I have dissuaded him more than once because, to begin with, I wanted a more full and ripe experience myself of what the true meaning is of this business of appointing Justices, and in the second place I hoped from what I heard that there was some intention of bringing this subject before the House of Commons —a thing I should have gladly welcomed because I think it would have tended to create a more wholesome and honest view on this subject than I am sorry to say has always prevailed in the country, and I know of no place in which jobbery and humbug in general has shorter life or shorter shrift than on the floor of the House of Commons. But having become conversant with these matters, and since no step seems likely to be taken, I think it would be wrong to postpone an inquiry of the fullest kind any longer.
I do not think that a Select Committee of either House is the best tribunal for this inquiry. If it was a Select Committee of this House they might be supposed to be influenced by one set of views; if it was a Select Committee of the other House the same thing might be suspected by the jealous critics who interest themselves in these matters. But I am able to tell your Lordships that the King has consented to the appointment of a Royal Commission for the purpose of investigating this subject in the sense in which my noble friend advocates that it should be investigated; that is to say, with a view of ascertaining how far you can get rid of those baneful elements in the appointment of Justices of the Peace to which he has referred.
It is necessary, however, I think, that I should say a few words, and they will be said quite dispassionately, with regard to my reasons for thinking that an inquiry is desirable. What is the position and what are the duties of Justices of the Peace? My Lords, they are the Judges of the poorer classes in this country. Those who can afford expensive litigation may go to the Courts of law; those who have large sums at stake may find their way to this House; but common justice among the poor is administered by the Justices of the Peace of England and Wales. Nearly

669
every criminal case that is tried, from the smallest offence to the crime of murder, at one time or another, at one stage or another, comes before Justices of the Peace. They also try very heavy and important cases at Quarter Sessions. They have administrative duties of the utmost importance—the duty of licensing, than which few things can be more important—together with multifarious other burdens imposed on them by different Acts of Parliament.
Now, how should these places be filled in a system which is so useful and characteristic as this system of Justices in England? My Lords, what we should all desire to see would be that the best men should be selected without regard to anything else except that they are the best men to discharge the duties. Also we should desire to see—and one ought to dwell on that—that where there is a choice, as, indeed, there is in many, many cases—the selection among those who are suitable should be so made that no class, and no creed, and no party could complain that they were excluded by reason of their opinions, political or religious. I believe that is what we should all like to see.
I have to tell your Lordships that there are very great difficulties under the present system in accomplishing that which we all desire. I believe that no one except those who have held the place I now hold can have the intimate knowledge that is acquired in an office of that nature of the difficulties of the task, and that is, to my mind, one of the most unfortunate parts of the whole thing. Every one looks at his own corner. He looks at his own county, possibly at his own parish, and sees some gentleman whom he thinks eminently fitted for the place or who has given him assistance in his political aspirations, and who, he thinks, ought to be appointed. It is characteristic of human nature, and many people who hold that view seem perfectly unaware that any other part of England has to be considered, or that there are any other duties appertaining to the Lord Chancellor than, omitting all other considerations, to do the thing alone that would satisfy them and gratify their political friends.
My noble and learned friend has stated that the responsibility of these appointments is with the Lord Chancellor. That
670
means to say that he is answerable if anything goes wrong, and he must, indeed, be a very tame-spirited person if he accepts responsibility if anything goes wrong without having had his say as to what is to be done in the discharge of that duty. There are about 220 separate Benches in boroughs alone that I have to fill up. There is no one to advise me or to give assistance of any sort, kind, or description. There is no Lord Lieutenant in any borough. How am I to make the choice in these 220 different boroughs? Personal knowledge I can have none, nor can any Lord Chancellor have it, and through this open gap—open because there are no resources to obtain the proper and necessary information—party claims on both sides are thrust forward, constantly with clamour and sometimes with menace, which, I need hardly tell your Lordships, is resisted with the contempt it deserves. This is on both sides of politics, and I do not think there is a pin to choose between one and the other. The consequence is that men of the highest qualities, who are not immersed in politics and whose assistance every one would desire, are liable to be overlooked—a circumstance of not small importance in this connection.
In addition to the 220 boroughs there are eighty-five counties. It would be a very great mistake to suppose that they are all, so to speak, under one blanket. The Lord Lieutenant, by custom, is associated with the Lord Chancellor in regard to each county. I have met and had interviews with a great many Lords Lieutenant; I have had correspondence with nearly all, and I have had communications with every one of them. In a few happy cases there has been nothing but formal communications; but I have had some opportunity of knowing—I do not in the least know whether what I say will be credited, but the truth is that the Lords Lieutenant, with hardly an exception, are as anxious as I am to prevent purely partisan appointments to the Bench. That is true. But they have great difficulties, although I congratulate them on the circumstance that they are on a smaller scale than mine.
When I came first into office I found that in some counties the Bench was almost entirely Conservative. I do not in the least suggest any blame to my predecessor the noble Earl who preceded me in the office. I believe that he followed the principle adopted by most Chancellors of leaving

671
entirely in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant the appointment of Justices of the Peace in each county. That was the common practice. I do not believe that the Lords Lieutenant intended any such result; but they naturally consulted and acted upon the advice of others, and those who advised them were nearly always on one side of politics, and nearly all, socially, of one class. It was natural on the part of those who so advised the Lords Lieutenant to prefer persons of their own social rank and members of their own party holding their own opinions. They had no responsibility. The further you get away from the fountain source the less the responsibility. I do not believe for a moment that there was any design to exclude one political party. I am quite sure there was not. Many of the Lords Lieutenant discussed it with me, and I am certain that neither they nor in all cases those who advised them designed it; but while all the appointments were made in that way, from one quarter and one set of opinions, the result was what I have described. Thus in many places there arose very real grounds for dissatisfaction, together with a sense of indignity towards Liberals which no man of spirit would submit to.
Now I am glad to say that the result of my communications with the different Lords Lieutenant has been that in almost every county of England, Scotland, and Wales the Lords Lieutenant and I have agreed with regard to the appointment of all the magistrates who have been appointed. That has been done not without a good deal of labour and effort, but with a very real, genuine wish on both sides to arrive at the best result. There is hardly a county in England, Scotland, and Wales in which these magistrates have not been appointed as the result of communications and agreement between the Lords Lieutenant and myself. I have received great assistance from them, for which I desire to thank them. Our object—or, at least, I know my object—has been to redress the real causes of complaint and to discountenance the doctrine that the Bench is to be the reward of political service. The discrimination in itself was a very difficult thing. It is very difficult to select, and the volume of the work is enormous.
Appointments have been made in, I believe, every one of the 220 boroughs and eighty-five counties. Not only so, but the
672
counties are divided into petty sessional divisions, and you have not merely to see that each county has its proper number of magistrates, but that a sufficient number are distributed all over the petty sessional divisions, which very much enlarges and increases the work. During the three years 1906–7–8, when nearly 6,000 magistrates were appointed, I reckon that about 20,000 applications were considered and refused. I try to satisfy myself in the case of each list as well as I can, but minute inquiry is impossible—from the volume of the work obviously impossible—and therefore you must work with a rough axe. It is very difficult from the very nature of the business to say that in every case the right choice has been made, and under the present system, as under the present spirit, if any wrong choice is made one is perfectly certain to hear of it from more quarters than one.
I ought to say now that, although the mass of the work is full of difficulty, the greatest embarrassment of all is this, that the work has to be carried on in an atmosphere of unceasing political jealousy not without an admixture of sectarian jealousy. The position of Justice of the Peace is an object of ambition naturally, the crown of an honourable career, but unfortunately for many years past both Parties in the State—and there is no distinction between them—have gradually come to regard the position as one which ought to be obtained by political interest and connection. This is the gravest, the most insidious, and the most widespread of the dangers which beset this subject. No one will openly avow that these appointments ought to be made in this way, or that it ought to be in the power of any one by political pressure upon Members of Parliament or upon Lords Lieutenant or upon Governments to select and enforce the choice of partisan Justices because they are party men. If that is to be done I prefer that it should be done by the open method of election, greatly as I detest the method of election for Judges of any kind, but it is better that it should be done in that way than attempted to be done by secret pressure.
The chief thing to be done, in my humble opinion, is this, to extirpate the tradition that Party interest is the avenue to this distinction. It has grown up during a considerable number of years, and what we want to do is to get rid of it. If we do not

673
succeed, if the principle I have spoken of is allowed to prevail, it will be the same as it is in the law of commerce, under which base coin drives out the sterling, and we shall find that the Benches will necessarily and naturally be degraded. I do not know what the opinion of the House of Commons may be upon this subject, but I have seen and spoken to scoresof Members of that House, and I must say I have found them as reasonable and as alive to the danger I have mentioned as any one of your Lordships can be—I mean that I have found them so with a few exceptions, and those had better not be referred to. Nearly all of them desire to remove this whole question from the sphere of party politics. It must be—I have not long left the House of Commons myself—I should think, an unbearable nuisance to be perpetually solicited to advocate the claims of this or that gentleman. In any case, I am sure that to rescue these appointments from all elements of political interest or influence is in the public interest.
My Lords, as to the remedy, that is what I hope the Royal Commission I will inquire into. My own belief is that it would be better not to displace either the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Lieutenant, but to provide some local machinery which should assist and advise them and enable them to carry out the spirit which I think and believe both sides of the House would be disposed to agree with. I have been anxious, as far as I can, to select the best men to fill places to which I attach the utmost importance. Now that I have announced that a Royal Commission is to be appointed, I hope my noble friend Lord James of Hereford will be willing to accept that, and not press for the Select Committee.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT WOLVERHAMPTON): My Lords, I have had some little experience as a borough magistrate, and I also had the honour of following Lord James of Hereford in the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I am in that respect familiar with the mode in which appointments are made both in boroughs and in counties. I agree with almost every word that has been said by the two noble and learned Lords who have spoken, but I think they have taken rather too gloomy a view of the situation.
674
In Wolverhampton the rule for many years has been that the city magistrates and the town council together appointed in equal numbers a committee, and that committee was in the habit—I believe it continues so to this day—of submitting the names which they thought most suitable to the Lord Lieutenant. My experience is that the Lord Lieutenant of the county—Lord Dartmouth—always carried out the recommendations put before him, and I believe that his appointments have given universal satisfaction. I do not say that system is one which could be generally established, but it has the element to which the Lord Chancellor has referred of introducing as far as possible, not election—I think elected judges would be a curse—but independent public opinion on the class of men who ought to be appointed.
In the county of Lancaster while I was Chancellor it fell to my lot to appoint 544 magistrates. The difficulty there has in the past formed the subject of Parliamentary interference and voting in the House of Commons and considerable conflict as between the Chancellor of the Duchy and the Lord Lieutenant. But Lord James, when he was Chancellor of the Duchy, passed a Minute which introduced the Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant, so to speak, to each other on practically equal terms, and when I followed him I adopted his rule and there never has been the slightest collision between the Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant. The rule we adopted was that the Lord Lieutenant was to nominate and that the Chancellor should appoint, but the understanding that was between myself and the late Lord Derby —and I believe it has been followed by our successors—was that we would accept mutually each other's nominations. The Lord Lieutenant would nominate the men he thought fit and suitable, and I, as Chancellor, agreed to accept those nominations. If those nominations did not include the candidates who I thought should be put on, then I would send my list to the Lord Lieutenant, and unless there was some clear ground of objection, the arrangement would be carried out. That plan worked most admirably. There never was the slightest difference of opinion, except in a few cases, between Lord Derby and myself, and in those cases the differences were not political.
I agree with Lord James that the first qualification should be character. I remember the late Lord Herschell telling me

675
of a case in which a man was nominated with full political support behind him who had been convicted of a disgraceful offence before a Bench actually in the county from which the recommendation came. I do not wish the impression to go abroad that magistrates are unsatisfactorily appointed or are deficient. On the whole I believe magisterial duties in this country to be well discharged. The only danger is the political pressure which is brought to bear occasionally in favour of unsuitable men. It is undesirable that the Bench should have the reputation of being appointed on political grounds, sometimes in defiance of public opinion on the point. I hope the Royal Commission which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has suggested will be able to find some solution of what is a grave and serious question.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I am not certain that I have anything to add to what the noble Viscount has said. I must say I entirely sympathise with his view. I think both the noble and learned Lords who spoke before the noble Viscount a little exaggerated the difficulty of the evil. I do not think it is so great as has been suggested. I have had a good deal to do with magistrates. For thirteen years I was Chairman of Quarter Sessions and saw them in that aspect, and for seventeen years afterwards I had the duty to discharge which has been described by the Lord Chancellor of selecting Justices. I must say I have never had the smallest friction with any of the Lords Lieutenant.
The title by which the Lord Lieutenant is more familiarly known has reference to his position in regard to the military services, but the real title he holds in connection with the recommendation of persons for the position of Justices is that of custos rotulorum and senior magistrate of the county. The moment we realise what his real function is the propriety of his recommending persons for appointment is obvious. He is the senior magistrate of the county, and as such has the responsibility of recommending, and does recommend, I think, with great fairness and with an entire desire to do justice. I agree that there is some difficulty in dealing with the larger counties where you have to provide for petty sessional divisions in every part; but I have always looked to the Lord Lieutenant
676
as being responsible for his recommendations. I was responsible for the appointment, but I had the Lord Lieutenant to look to as the proper person to make the recommendations. He was constantly associated with matters in the county, and knew both the necessities of the petty sessional divisions and the fitness of the persons whom he recommended.
With regard to the other part of the question, I have often lamented during the years that I was entrusted with the duty of selection that there was no person in the position of the Lord Lieutenant who could recommend the magistrates in the boroughs. The Mayors, by the office which they hold, would presumably be the best fitted for this purpose; but I am bound to say I did not find that I received the same amount of assistance from the Mayors as I received from the Lords Lieutenant. Rightly or wrongly, the Mayors of the boroughs were generally found to be violent political partisans, and that presented a difficulty. My action in this matter has been subject of great animadversion, I believe principally on the part of those who were on my own side of politics. The difficulty of doing the best one could was great, but in that respect I received the greatest possible assistance from the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. They were able to give me such information as would enable the exclusion to be made of persons who ought not to be appointed.
One of the questions that was frequently pressed upon me was the appointment of working men to the Bench. I did appoint more than one working man. But, in my opinion, the real working man has no time to devote to the duties, even supposing that he were well enough educated and possessed commonsense, as a good many of them do. Certainly he is not in the position in which he can claim that his time is his own. I do not desire to enlarge more upon the subject, but my view is that, speaking generally, there has been a great deal of exaggeration in this matter. I believe that the present system has worked extremely well in the counties, and I can honestly say that I never discovered any tendency to make partisan appointments on the part of Lords Lieutenant. At the same time I would be glad to see some mode adopted by which the facts should be ascertained, and I hope

677
that the future system, whatever it is, will be as perfect as my noble and learned friends wish it to be. On that subject however, I entertain considerable doubts owing to the difficulties which are inherent in its regulation.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I do not know whether it would be presumptuous on my part to say a few words in this debate, but as a Lord Lieutenant to whom reference has been made I should like to express my own individual views, and to say how heartily I approve of the proposal that the whole of this question should be inquired into by a Royal Commission. No doubt the removal of the property qualification has added very greatly to the difficulties. There can be no doubt that the great majority of existing magistrates are on one side of politics—due largely, I think, to the existence in years gone by of the property qualification and the fact that men possessing the necessary experience were to be found chiefly on one side of politics. It is not an easy matter to overcome these difficulties. I have in mind a Bench in my own county, which at one period was presided over by a magistrate of strong Liberal tendencies. When the question of the political disproportion of magistrates arose acutely I naturally looked to this Bench in view of the fact that I had never made any recommendations without the approval of the Chairman of the Bench, and without asking him whether he had anyone whose name he would wish to bring before me—I naturally looked, as I say, to this Bench as one that I should be able to present to the Lord Chancellor as an ideal Bench from this point of view, but my surprise was great when I found that only one Liberal sat on that Bench. No doubt it is most important that these appointments should be removed from the area of political influence.
Lord James set out a very excellent ideal of what Justices of the Peace ought to be, and he suggested that they should be sufficient in numbers and efficient in quality. One of the great difficulties we have now is that a great many of those who are brought under our notice for recommendation are, on inquiry, discovered not to possess the necessary qualities, and when their names are not submitted it is invariably attributed to Party bias. It is highly necessary to examine recommenda-
678
tions in order to find out who are the men best fitted to fill the appointments on the Bench. I think it would be a great advantage that the Lords Lieutenant should have the support that would be given to them by the recommendations of a Royal Commission. I can assure your Lordships that the Lords Lieutenant who have the responsibility of recommending magistrates take every possible care to see that the men who are appointed are worthy of the position. I am certain that under no system will it be possible to satisfy everybody, and I think that what we have been able to do is the next best thing to that, for we have been able to give complete satisfaction to none. I hope that the proposal submitted by the Lord Chancellor will give general satisfaction, and that the outcome will be to strengthen the hands of Lords Lieutenant.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: In view of the statement of the Lord Chancellor, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD ADVOCATE AND LAND TAXATION.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had the following Notice on the Paper—
"To call attention to the speech of the Lord Advocate at Armadale on the 2nd June, when he is reported to have said: 'The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made but a very modest estimate of their yield, only some£500,000, yet of all his proposals they would find that the land taxes would be the most keenly—indeed, savagely—fought. Why? The reason was that these modest-looking taxes involved a principle capable of far-reaching application, a principle which they believed to be sound and safe, but which the great bulk of their political opponents equally strongly denied. What was that principle? It was this, that the land of the country, the land as distinct from the buildings erected upon it, the land as distinct from the improvements made upon it, in truth belonged to the nation. And if this were so, then the nation was entitled to appropriate for public purposes a portion of the value of the land. This the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to do'; and to ask whether the opinions of His Majesty's Government are correctly represented by the Lord Advocate."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it is due to the House and to myself that I should explain the position in which I am placed. The Question has been on the Paper for some days, and personally I dislike postponing anything without notice;

679
but since I came to the House this afternoon I have received a message from the noble Earl who leads the House that it was his intention to answer the Question and that he would answer it if he could be in his place in time. I may say that nothing, as your Lordships would suppose, could exceed the courtesy of his message, and I have no complaint to make. I understand that the noble Earl is engaged in public business of an important nature, and in the circumstances, as he is not here, I have no alternative but to postpone the Question. I will take it off the Paper altogether, in order that I may consult the
680
noble Earl as to when it will be convenient that it should be again put down.

HOPS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Moved, That the Order re-committing the Bill to the Standing Committee be rescinded, and that the Standing Committee be negatived (The Earl Carrington); agreed to, and ordered accordingly: The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.