Lords Sitting of 9 February 1911

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The KING'S answer to the Address of Monday last reported by the Lord Steward (E. Chesterfield).

ASHBORNE AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
BARRY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
BRIGHTON, HOVE AND DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL. [H.L]
CHAPEL-EN-LE-FRITH, CHINLEY AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
CHESHAM AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
CHESTER WATER BILL. [H.L.]
ENFIELD GAS BILL. [H.L]
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LLOYDS BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON CEMETERY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON, TILBURY AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LUTON GAS BILL. [H.L.]
LUTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
MIDDLESBROUGH, STOCKTON-ON-TEES, AND THORNABY TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
PENLLWYN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
ROCHDALE MARKET BILL. [H.L.]
SIDMOUTH GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L]
STAR LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
SWANSEA GAS BILL. [H.L.]
WHALEY BRIDGE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

ABERDARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
AFON LWYD VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
CHARLES SHEILS' CHARITY BILL. [H.L.]
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
CROYDON AND SOUTHERN DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
EASTERN VALLEY (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
ELY RURAL DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL. [H.L.]
HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
HASTINGS CORPORATION (WATER AND FINANCE) BILL. [H.L.]
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L]
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (COMBINED DRAINAGE) BILL. [H.L.]
MACCLESFIELD AND DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION AND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
MALVERN ELECTRIC TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
MATLOCK DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (HERTFORD SEWERAGE) BILL. [H.L]
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL. [H.L.]
OLDHAM AND SADDLEWORTH DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L]
OYSTERMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
PADDINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL (SUPERANNUATION AND PENSIONS) BILL. [H.L]
POPLAR BOROUGH COUNCIL (SUPERANNUATION AND PENSIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
SAINT MARY PREST\VICH RECTORY BILL. [H.L.]
SAINT MARY RADCLIFFE RECTORY BILL. [H.L.]
SLOUGH URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
SWINTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
THORNEY DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
WINCH ESTER CORPORATION (ELECTRIC SUPPLY) BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, and read la

LOCAL FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENTS.
LORD BELPER LORD BELPER rose to move to resolve "That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to inquire into the application of the provisions contained in the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1804, and the Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894, relating to financial adjustments consequent on the alteration of the boundaries of a local government area or on an alteration in the constitution or status of the governing body of a local government area, and to report to the House if they are of opinion. that any amendments in such provisions are desirable."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which I have put on the Paper is the same Motion which was agreed to at the latter part of last session and in precisely the same terms, and is for the purpose of setting up a Joint Committee to try and solve the vexed question with regard to financial adjustments between counties and county boroughs in the case of extension or alteration of the boundaries of areas. This Motion was accepted last session by His Majesty's Government. Since then I have heard some criticism of the wording of the Motion, and the point has been raised whether the words "financial adjustments" need necessarily include the question of compensation, which is one of the questions with which it was obviously intended the Joint Committee should deal, because its suggested appointment arose out of the difficulties which had arisen between boroughs and counties in consequence of the judgment of the House of Lords in the Hartlepool case. In my view it is perfectly clear from the wording of the Motion that the Joint Committee would he appointed for the purpose of considering the whole subject, including the question whether or not compensation should be payable. Indeed, if that were excluded the appointment of the Joint Committee would be absolutely futile. Therefore I cannot conceive that there is any necessity to alter the wording of the Motion.
May I also remind the House that nearly every speaker both here and in another place specially alluded, in discussing this
74
subject, to the question of compensation, and as far as I myself was concerned that was the whole of my case in bringing forward the Motion, the difficulty having arisen in consequence of the judgment to which I have referred and in which it was decided that compensation could not he paid in these cases for loss of area or rateable value. I would further remind the noble Earl the Leader of the House that the President of the Local Government Board stated, in the discussion on the subject in the other. House, that he intended to refer the vexed question of compensation to county authorities for loss of rateable value to a strong and impartial Joint Committee of both Houses and that it would be set up as soon as possible. Unless, therefore, there is any authority in this House who thinks it necessary to make an alteration in the wording of the Motion as it stands on the Paper I do not myself propose to pay any attention to that criticism.
Let me add that I hope the Joint Committee will be appointed as soon as possible. It is extremely desirable, not only that this vexed question should he settled, but that it should be settled before the Bills which are now before Parliament, and which may all be affected by the decision to which the Joint Committee would arrive, get through their various stages. There is the Birmingham Bill itself, out of which this proposal to set up the Joint Committee chiefly arose, and there are Bills for the extension of the borough of Reading and for the extension of Bath. The Bath Bill has already got in front of the other Bills in its passage through the House of Commons—I believe it has practically passed through that House. Perhaps the noble Lord who is acting as Chairman of Committees will consider whether, when the time comes, it might not be desirable that the Birmingham Bill—the principal Bill and the one on which the fight will really be fought—should be taken in this House in front of the Bath Bill. I will not, however, go into that. question, which is not one for me to consider. I hope this Joint Committee will be appointed without. unnecessary delay, and that there wilt be an opportunity for them to fully discuss the matter and come to a decision with regard to the clauses which will have to be inserted in these Bills before the Bills reach their final stage, because the clauses to be inserted might reasonably affect the other clauses in the Bills. In the confident hope that the noble

75
Earl the Leader of the House will accept this Motion, as he did last year, I beg to move.
Moved, to resolve That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to inquire into the application of the provisions contained in the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894, and the Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894, relating to financial adjustments consequent on the alteration of the boundaries of a local government area or on an alteration in the constitution or status of the governing body of a local government area, and to report to the House if they are of opinion that any amendments in such provisions are desirable.—(Lord Belper.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I need scarcely assure the House that I have no opposition whatever to offer to the Motion made by the noble Lord. On the contrary, I am glad that he has proceeded with it at so early a date in the session. The House will remember that in the early part of July last year we went with tolerable fullness into the whole of this vexed, difficult and complicated question, and it was agreed that the best chance of solving it was to he found in the appointment of a Joint Committee. That view was also accepted in another place, and the Joint Committee was authorised by both Houses. As regards the point raised by the noble Lord, or rather raised by other people against the noble Lord, in reference to the actual wording of the Motion, I confess it seems to me most unlikely, and indeed almost inconceivable, that the Joint Committee could take so narrow a view of their functions as to suppose that the term "financial adjustments" did not include the possibility of discussing and deciding on the question of compensation; and in the absence of any expressed opinion to the contrary I should not myself be disposed to advise the noble Lord to alter the wording of his Motion. I agree that for the reasons given by the noble Lord it is desirable that the Committee should be nominated as soon as possible, and I hope steps will be taken to that effect.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

THOROUGHBRED STALLION SHOW.
LORD ST. DAVIDS LORD ST. DAVIDS rose to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he would consider the alteration of the rule by which no exhibitor at the Show of Thoroughbred Stallions is allowed to enter more than one stallion in any class.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before putting this Question I should like to say that I realise that His Majesty's Government cannot alter the rule for this year, and that if a change is to be made it can only be made for the exhibition of horses a year hence. In putting the Question I am not in the least intending to cavil at the action of the Government, as this is the first time for many years that a British Government has taken any active step towards helping the important and very necessary industry of horse-breeding,. I recognise that in adopting this rule the Government are following one of the old rules of the Royal Commission on Horse-Breeding, but it seems to me to be a rule which has no sound basis in reason, and I want them to consider whether they cannot abolish it in future. For this rule I have never heard any serious argument advanced, except that without it people might make a business out of hunter stallions. But even if a business could be made out of them, it would he a very good thing. Hunter stallions are largely kept by country gentlemen, including many members of your Lordships' House, for the benefit of their own tenants and the farmers in their immediate neighbourhood. These gentlemen are doing an excellent public work, and why they should be told that this rule must continue for fear somebody may get two premiums I cannot imagine.
After all, the object of this show of thoroughbred stallions is not that the Government may provide an interesting competition among stallion owners; the real object is that farmers and breeders may get hold of the very best horses available in the country, and if one man has two. three, or four of the best horses in England the rules ought to be so framed that that man should be encouraged. At present it is extremely difficult to keep in the country the class of horse that is most wanted. The agents of most of the European countries as well as the Japanese Government are spending large sums of money every year to secure our best horses. It is, therefore, very advisable that we should do every-

77
thing possible. to encourage the owners of the best. horses, and that can only be done by giving premiums to the best animals even if one man happens to possess two, three, or four stallions. This year you have another great advantage inasmuch as His Majesty has given a Champion Cup for this purpose. That will, perhaps, help as much as the additional grant given by the Government to keep good horses in the country, because owners will be induced to enter into competition in order to win the King's Cup as well as the grant. This will undoubtedly tend to encourage people to keep horses above the value for which they can reasonably expect to get a fair return; and it is, I contend, all in favour of the abolition of the rule. I hope the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture will tell us that in another year the rule will be abolished.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I intervene in this discussion mainly on the ground that from my youth upwards I have been a great lover of horses, while during the past twenty years I have had much experience in breeding stock. I have seen a letter sent cut by the Board of Agriculture to the various local authorities, and, as far as I can see, the proposals contained in it are of an able and practical kind. I am certain there will be only one desire in the country, and that is to assist the Board in this matter. I noticed two sentences in that letter. The first was that the President was anxious that the gentlemen appointed on the local committees should be intimately acquainted with the industry of horse-breeding; and the other, that it was all-important that the gentlemen appointed should possess practical experience and be closely identified with the industry. I cordially agree with those remarks and I would suggest that as these stallions are thoroughbred and of very great value, there should he at least one gentleman on each committee who has a thorough knowledge of thoroughbred stock and has studied the Stud Book. I am afraid the British public do not really understand the value of the animals embraced in the Stud Book, and are unaware very often that the Stud Book is quite different from the Herd Book. In the latter cattle can be entered after certain crosses have been obtained, but no animals can be entered in the Stud Book unless their origin can be traced to the original mares.
78
When gentlemen are coming from all foreign countries to buy our best blood we ought to take care to preserve, as far as we can, the best character of thoroughbreds. I have had some experience of the damage sometimes done by the expenditure of money given by the Government with the best intentions for promoting the breeding of horses. Fifteen years ago I sat on a Commission appointed by a former Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Cadogan, to inquire into Horse-breeding in Ireland, and we found that the Government had spent money on an animal known as the Hackney stallion, an animal of which I never approved. If that system of encouraging the Hackney stallion in the hunter-breeding districts had been continued, I believe that fine breed of hunters for which Ireland has always been remarkable would have very greatly deteriorated. There exists a magnificent breed of hunter brood mares got by thoroughbred stallions, and the produce of those animals, when mated with thoroughbred sires, used to fetch very large prices. If they had been mated wit h the perhaps rather taking Hackney stallion, the breed which has done so much good for the breeder in Ireland would have come to an end. Thus with the best intentions the Government might spend money on animals which were no good at all, and therefore they should be assisted by gentlemen with practical knowledge. I would urge on the noble Earl the absolute necessity of appointing on the committees gentlemen acquainted with the breeding and rearing of thoroughbred stallions.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, I hope I may be permitted, before I answer the Question, to offer my best thanks to the noble Marquess for the generous words he has used in reference to the efforts of the Board to do something, at any rate, to promote the improved breeding of horses. The noble Marquess's words, which I hope will be well reported, will, no doubt, have great effect with the Advisory Council who have so kindly consented to help the Government. I understand the noble Marquess to mean that on the county committees gentlemen well acquainted with the breeding of racehorses should be appointed and that that should be left to the Lords Lieutenant who have kindly consented to form the committees. No doubt that suggestion will be warmly appreciated and acted upon.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think it is the Chairman of the County Council who has to form the committee. I should be quite content with Lord Durham in my County.
EARL CARRINGTON: The Duke of Richmond told me that he was taking a great interest in his county committee and that led me into the mistake. As regards the Question on the Paper, I can only remind my noble friend that the Government have only been five weeks in office, as it were, since their new departure, and, therefore, I hope he will excuse me for not having laid clown any very hard-and-fast rules on any subject yet. It is quite true that it is impossible to do anything this year, but the Advisory Council met yesterday under the presidency of Lord Middleton, when I know this question was discussed; and it will be gone into again most thoroughly. I do not like to give my own opinion on the subject, though I have one, as it is left entirely to the discretion of the Advisory Council; but I am not without hope that the wish expressed by my noble friend will before this day twelve months be practically carried into effect.
House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.