Lords Sitting of 21 March 1911

Preamble
The Viscount St. VINCENT—Took the Oath.

KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES BRIDGE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Dover Corporation.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

ENFIELD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  WINCHESTER CORPORATION (ELECTRIC SUPPLY) BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord de Manley be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Kinnaird; read, and agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to forth the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

  E. Lovelace,

  E. Cromer (chairman),

  L. Saltoun,

  L. Monson,

  L. Monkswell;

  agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Belfast Corporation Bill
ought to be dispensed with provided that Tramway No. 6 be struck out of the Bill:
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill
ought to be dispensed with provided I hat Tramways Nos. 1 and 2 be struck out of the Bill:
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional Provision in the
Rotherham Corporation Bill
ought to be dispensed with:
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Brighton District Tramways Bill [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed provided that Tramways Nos. 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10 be struck out of the Bill:
And that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill
ought to be dispensed with provided that Tramways Nos. 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 12A, 13, 13A, 14, 14A, and 14B be struck out of the Bill:
Read, and agreed to.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
ASHBORNE AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

LONDON CEMETERY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
CHARLES SHEILS CHARITY BILL. [H.L]
SWINTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L]
ELY RURAL DISTRICT WATER BILL.[H.L]
SAINT MARY PRSTWICH RECTORY. BILL. [H.L]
Reported, with Amendments.

SAINT MARY RADCLIFFE RECTORY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.
WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
LUTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (ALNWICK CORPORATION PAYMENT) CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a scheme approved and certified by the Board of Education under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, relating to the yearly payment out of the Corporation Funds to the Corporation Schools in the Borough of Alnwick, under section 7 of the Alnwick Corporation Act, 1882—Was presented by the Earl Beauchamp; read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 37.)

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL. [H.L.] and THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Commons' Message of yesterday considered (according to order): Moved, That this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons, viz.: "That it is expedient that the Thames Conservancy Bill be referred to the Joint Committee which is appointed to consider the Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [H.L.]" (The Chairman of Committees); agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
Further moved, That a Committee of Four Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the Bills, and that the said Committee be named by the Committee of Selection (The Chairman of Committees); agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

RIGHTS OF WAY BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, the history of this Bill in the other House is, I think, a conspicuous illustration of the congestion of business there, and of the almost total impossibility for a measure of this kind, a measure of a non-party character, in the hands of a private Member, to pass that House. The Society for the Maintenance of Public Rights over Commons and Footpaths, of which I am Chairman, has for the last seven years endeavoured in vain to pass this measure through the other House. On three occasions it was read a second time, twice without a division, and the third time by a majority of something like twelve to one, only thirteen Members voting against it. Twice it went through Grand Committee with considerable discussion and with sonic very small Amendments, but on each occasion it passed through Committee so late in the session that it was not possible to get it through its further stages. It received the support of lawyers on both sides of the House, and not a single lawyer spoke against it; that, I think, considering how very easy it is for lawyers to pick holes and disagree with one another, is a very remarkable thing. Last year and this year, although fifteen Members joined in the ballot, they failed to get precedence for the Bill in the other House.
In these circumstances I have ventured to introduce the Bill into this House. Some of my friends think that that might be somewhat dangerous, but I have assured them that, in my belief, your Lordships on a Bill of this kind, which is of a non-party character and deals with a matter where public rights to some extent conflict with private interests, will be quite as unbiassed and disinterested as the other House, and I feel certain that you will give the Bill your best attention. Indeed, when I look back upon the many measures which I have proposed and carried in Parliament relating to commons and analogous subjects, I recall with satisfaction that the most radical of them was one which was first introduced in this House at my instance by the late Lord Thring. It was opposed by the then Leader of the Party opposite, who denounced it as a measure of confiscation; but, notwithstanding that, it received the

545
support of the majority of your Lordships' House and was passed into law. Compared with that measure, the one which I am asking your Lordships to read a second time to-day is a mere fleabite, and, therefore, I have very great hopes that your Lordships will be able to agree to it.
The necessity for the Bill arises in this way. The point is not a long or a very technical one, and I shall not have to detain your Lordships at any great length about it. The law of England and of Ireland, differing from the law of Scotland and from the law of most other countries of Europe, rests the right of the public to a way or footpath, not upon user, but upon dedication. The footway must be dedicated, either by actual dedication or by user from which dedication is presumed. It is also the undoubted law that a tenant for life of a property under a family settlement or by entail cannot dedicate a right of way to the public. There are many things he can do. He can lay out roads for building purposes near a town, but he cannot dedicate a right of way in a rural district to the public. I need hardly remind your Lordships that a great part of the land of this country is held under family settlements, successively renewed in such a manner that for many years past nobody has been in a position to dedicate a right of way to the public. It follows from this that many cases have arisen in which evidence of user is produced in support of the rights of way extending over forty or fifty years, as long as the memory of man can go back but where family settlements, or some other disability, have existed for a still longer period, and there is no proof of dedication before the commencement of such family settlement. In cases of this kind I find that Judges disagree. In many cases Judges have laid down that, where evidence of user does not go back further than the family settlement or entail, the right of the public cannot be maintained.
The noble and learned Lord opposite, the Lord Chief Justice, in a case where evidence of user was produced of an undoubted character extending over fifty or sixty years, but where the property was held in family settlement for upwards of 150 years, and, therefore, there was no person during those 1.50 years to dedicate the right to the public, laid down that in that case the public right could not be maintained, and his ruling has been followed in many cases and in an
546
increasing number of cases of late years. On the other hand, there have been not a few cases where Judges have taken a different view. There was a case tried before the late Lord Justice Chitty some fifteen years ago, where evidence of user was produced extending over fifty or sixty years. It was contended, on the part of the landowner, that the land had been entailed by Act of Parliament as far back as the reign of Queen Anne, and that consequently there was nobody since then who could have dedicated the right of way to the public. It was argued, therefore, that according to the Lord Chief Justice's ruling the public right could not be maintained. The Judge, however, in that case brushed aside the objection, and said that where the evidence went back as far as the memory of living man extended he would presume that it went back even further, as far back as William the Conqueror if necessary, in order that the right of the public might be maintained.
The example of Lord. Justice Chitty has been followed by other Judges. It may be said, therefore, that at the present time there is a great variety of action on the part of Judges. Nobody exactly knows what will happen at the trial of such cases. One bad effect is that local authorities, who are charged with the duty of maintaining rights of way under sections of the Local Government Act of 1894 for which I myself was personally responsible, are unwilling to maintain those public rights lest family settlements should be sprung upon them and the verdict should go against them and they should be mulcted in costs, which would fall on the shoulders of the ratepayers. The result is that many footpaths of great value to the public have been lost in this way, and also many footpaths which ought to have been enforced by the local authorities have been practically abandoned.
I should like to give your Lordships an illustration of what happens in the present uncertainty of the law. There was a case in one of the southern counties of England of a bridle-path which was very much appreciated by the whole neighbourhood as it was the only bridle-path which gave access to very fine open down country to which riders were fond of going. A gentleman bought a small property which was crossed by the way, and finding that the bridle-way cut his property into two he

547
was anxious to put an end to it. He could not do so, however, in respect of his own property because it had been held in absolute ownership for a great many years, and there was no doubt whatever that user by the public in that case would have held good. He therefore bought from the incumbent of the parish, through the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, a few acres of the glebe through which the bridle-way also ran, and he then maintained that, inasmuch as the incumbent of a parish is only tenant for life and in the same position as a tenant for life under an entailed property, he could not dedicate the property and that therefore there was no possibility of this bridle-path ever having been dedicated to the public by the successive incumbents who were owners of the glebe. Having bought the glebe he closed the bridle-way and caused very great indignation throughout the district.
A local inquiry was held by the district board, and it was proved beyond all question that for fifty or sixty years the public had used this bridle-way. The bridle-way passed over the land of a noble -Duke, a member of this House, who wrote to the district board stating that in his view it was a public way, that he had always recognised it as such, and that he wished it to remain open. As I have said, the evidence was conclusive on the point that for fifty or sixty years it had been used by the public without any interruption, and there was no evidence whatever to the contrary. But the district board were informed by their lawyer that the question of law arising upon the point whether dedication could be presumed in such a case was so uncertain that he could not advise them to maintain legal proceedings for the purpose of vindicating the right of the public. Accordingly no proceedings were taken by the district board, and the bridle-path was therefore closed to the public. Upon that six of the neighbouring landowners signed a strong protest which they published in the local papers. I will venture to read an extract from it because it gives a justification for the Bill which is now before your Lordships. Tins is what they said—
"Mr.… having purchased the glebe, claims to be in a position to obstruct the bridle way, and to say to the public, who have used it openly and freely as long as the oldest inhabitants can recollect, You shall no longer use this bridle way.' We can see that until the law is altered to safeguard the public from such legal technicality, it might
548
not be possible to succeed in a legal action against this gentleman; but surely he cannot fail to admit, after having heard the unanimous evidence so unreservedly given at the inquiry by men of honour and repute, that there had been an uninterrupted use for so many years, that the moral victory remains with the petitioners. This is just one of those cases where a landowner can, by relying on a single and technical legal point, suddenly deprive the public as well as those who ought to he his friends and neighbours of a right which has existed probably from time immemorial."
I could quote other cases of the same kind. I have been surprised myself at the cases of this nature which have occurred. In these circumstances we feel that a change in the law is absolutely necessary.
I may remind your Lordships that the law such as I have described it used to be the law with regard to private rights of way and other easements over property in favour of an adjoining property. But in 1832 the Prescription Act was passed which altered the law and provided, as against owners of property held absolutely, that twenty years' user of the private right of way or easement would be sufficient and conclusive, and, as against a tenant under an entailed estate or a glebe owner, that forty years' user would be sufficient. What we propose by this Bill is to copy the Act of 1832 and apply it to public rights of way as well as to private rights of way; and if your Lordships assent to this measure, then twenty years' user as against property held absolutely without entail or family settlement will be sufficient. to give to the public a right of way, and in the case of limited estates or estates under disability of any kind forty years' user will be sufficient. That, in fact, is very much the law of Scotland at this moment, with some trifling differences which it is not worth while noticing. For in Scotland there is no presumption of dedication. Rights of way there depend wholly on user, and user for forty years is sufficient to give the public a right.
I do not think it will be necessary for me to describe at further length the details of this Bill. It is a comparatively short one, and if your Lordships agree to the Second Reading there will be in Committee full opportunity for discussing the details. But I should like to say a few words before I sit down as to the value of footpaths. I think everybody must agree that as the population of this country increases, so the value of footpaths becomes greater. Still more so is that the case at the present

549
time, when motors and traction engines, motor-cycles and bicycles have invaded the country roads throughout the whole of the country and have destroyed a great part of their charm. For my part I have lost all pleasure in walking on the rural roads in my district, and I only feel pleasure in rural scenery when I get off the road on to a footpath. Fortunately a whole net- work of footpaths exists all over the country. I think very few people have any idea of the number of footpaths which exist.
During the last few years the society to which I have referred has been appealed to in many cases, both by landowners and local authorities, to arbitrate between them as to footpaths existing upon properties. In one case—that of the Chequers Estate, in the county of Buckinghamshire, consisting of 3,000 acres—the owner appealed to the society, with the consent of the local authority, to arbitrate as to the footpaths on his property, and the society, through its officer, held a local inquiry on the subject. While rejecting some of the footpaths which were claimed, we decided that no fewer than thirty-six footpaths were legitimate and were to be affirmed in existence. In the same manner in many other parts of the country we have held arbitrations upon the existence of footpaths. Of course these decisions are not legal in this sense, that they are not final; but when local authorities and landowners agree to accept them they may practically be considered as final decisions. In this way we have arbitrated in regard to footpaths on about 500 square miles in five different counties, and in respect of these 500 square miles we have decided that something like 3,000 footpaths exist. If that be the proportion throughout the whole country, there must be something like 300,000 footpaths in England and Wales. Whatever the number may be, however, I think we may take it for certain that they are very highly valued by the people in the various districts.
Every local authority almost without exception in the country has petitioned in favour of this Bill. Such associations as the County Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association, and others of the same kind, after careful inquiry, have petitioned in favour of the Bill, and I think I may say that every local authority in the country is in favour of it. I venture,
550
therefore, to think that your Lordships will do well to accept the views of local authorities throughout the country. For my part I believe that your Lordships could not do a more popular act than pass this Bill and put an end to those technicalities which threaten the existence of many of the footpaths throughout the country. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Eversley.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, a portion of the noble Lord's remarks seemed to be intended to convey the impression, which I thoroughly share, that it is of considerable advantage to initiate legislation in this House—an opinion which I am afraid is not very generally shared by the noble Lord's colleagues. I have frequently observed, not only here but in another place, that when a measure of this kind is brought forward it is generally represented as being a perfectly harmless and colourless measure which is going to do an immense amount of good, but which, nevertheless, is going to leave everything in exactly the same position as before, and nobody is going to be inconvenienced in the slightest degree. In full accordance with this practice I observed that the noble Lord referred to this particular Bill as a fleabite—
LORD EVERSLEY: Only in comparison with the other.
LORD NEWTON: Quite so. I should like to point out that this measure, estimable no doubt though it is, is not so insignificant as the noble Lord would desire us to believe. I may say that I have no intention of offering opposition to this Bill, for one excellent reason—namely, that I personally have always taken particular care not to put any obstruction in the way of the public in this matter, because I know very well that if I did I should only get the worst of it. But I should like to point out that, however colourless and insignificant this measure may be, it is, I believe, the first occasion on which an owner is presumed not to enjoy full rights in his land unless he can show that he has not parted with those rights in favour of the public. It might be extremely difficult to bring evidence to negative any intention of dedicating

551
a right of way, and quite conceivably it might he necessary to prove interference with a right of access.
If we are going to admit this somewhat important principle, which, after all, is a new departure, it is essential that there should be certain safeguards. It seems to me quite clear that an owner at all events should have knowledge beforehand of the possibility of such a right arising against him. Therefore I think it is obvious that this Bill ought not to apply to land which is held under current leases, because the owner, naturally not anticipating legislation of this kind, in all probability has never guarded against the chances of the tenant allowing public access to his land, knowing that in consequence of the inaction of his tenant under the present law no right could accrue against him. It ought also, I think, to be made perfectly plain that an owner must have been in effective possession of his land before an intention to dedicate can he presumed, because it is quite conceivable that there might be intervals between the termination of the leases in which a man might. be in technical possession. The justice of the Amendments which I have suggested was recognised by the Committee of the House of Commons which considered the Bill, I think two sessions ago, on which the Government were represented in the proportion of something like four to one, and these alterations were accepted without any discussion at all.
But I really have risen to point out a matter which I observed the noble Lord did not allude to at all in the course of a somewhat lengthy speech. I desire to draw particular attention to Clause 5 of the Bill. I suppose the noble Lord will tell me that this, like the Bill, does not mean anything in particular. If that is so, I shall certainly move to leave out the clause when we go into Committee. But as 1 read the clause, it appears to me to be perfectly plain that it is intended to deprive an owner of all rights over his land except, of course, such as are enjoyed by the general public, and to leave him the liability for repairing the road or highway or whatever it may be that has become public property. Otherwise the clause seems to me meaningless. And, in addition to that, surely under this clause a man would not only be liable for the upkeep and the maintenance of what he used to
552
believe was his own property but has become the property of the public, but he would be liable for any accident which might occur in consequence of his neglect. I should like to put this analogy to the noble Lord. It seems to me precisely on a par with this. I, out of my good nature, lend the noble Lord my watch. The noble Lord, having had my watch for a certain period, mines to me and says, "In consequence of your action your watch now belongs to me, but, although it belongs to me, it will be your duty to wind it up and to keep it in repair, and if it goes wrong I shall send the bill in to you; and if any unfortunate accident should occur through the watch not keeping time I shall sue you for damages." That seems to me common-sense interpretation of this clause, and certainly unless I get a better explanation of it when the Bill goes into Committee I shall move to leave the clause out.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I do not rise to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill, but I. wish to make a few remarks with regard to it. I am sure that no one in this House wishes to interfere with existing footpaths, nor in any way to curtail the rights of the public. On the other hand, I think it is our duty to look at the language of the Bill very carefully, and not to admit rights per incuriam and without having considered what we are doing. I must say that, like my noble friend Lord Newton, I was very glad to hear the confidence which the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill places in this House. It appears that some of his friends who. I suppose, have no experience of this House, believe this House to be a very unfair body of legislators; but my noble friend, having some experience, knows us better, and has, therefore, very wisely introduced this Bill here.
LORD EVERSLEY: I was referring to when the Bill was in the hands of private Members.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord said that some of his friends had told him that he was doing a very risky thing in introducing the Bill into your Lordships' House, but he said he believed this House would give it careful and impartial consideration, and it was in regard to that remark that I was

553
expressing my entire agreement with him. The noble Lord spoke of the Bill as referring almost exclusively to settled property, but it does a great deal more than that. He did not call attention to some of the main features of the Bill. But before I go to that, let me point out that this Bill, if it passes into law—and I do not see why it should not—is very likely to have a different effect from what the noble Lord expects. In the first place, when. an owner who has allowed people to pass through his park or go along footpaths sees that if he allows this for twenty years he is presumed to have dedicated the path to the public, he will be inclined to be rather more chary of giving permission than he has been up to the present time. And whatever owners might do, it would be absolutely the duty of trustees to stop all these ways which, if they allowed them to continue for forty years, would enable the public to claim rights to the footpaths.
With regard to the Bill itself, if your Lordships will look at Clause 2, you will see a provision that "where any way"—it is not limited at all to settled property and there is no reference to the fact that it is supposed to be or claimed to be a right of way—
"where any way…has been actually enjoyed by the public without interruption for a full period of twenty years, such way shall be al to have been dedicated as a public highway."
In the first place, what is the meaning of the words "actually enjoyed by the public without interruption "? Those words are taken from the Act of 1832, and although drafting may not be very good at the present time, yet in those days words which were not very precise were much snore freely used than now. Then if the noble Lord will turn to Clause 6, he will see that in applying the words to Scotland he uses much more precise terms. He says this—
"There shall be deemed to be a right of public way upon or over land or water wherever there has been a use of such way by the public as a matter of right., continuously and without interruption, for a full period of twenty years."
Those words are clear and perfectly definite. It must be shown, not merely that a person has used a path, but that he has used it as a matter of right and could not be prevented from going over it by any one, also that he had used it continuously and without interruption. As the Bill now stands, the full period of twenty years
554
might mean any twenty years in the last hundred years. There is no provision fixing the period of time in which the twenty years occur.
Then in Clause 3 I find this provision—
"In the case of any way which previously to the passing of this Act has been decided by a competent Court not to be a public highway, this Act shall not apply except as from the date of such decision."
What does that mean? I really do not understand. Does it mean that the Court having decided that the right of way does not exist, the right of reviving that action has to commence again after the date of the judgment; or what does it mean? I should have thought that if the clause had stopped at the words "this Act shall not apply" that would have been the right thing to do. Clause 5 appears to me, if it has any meaning at all, to be very dangerous. It provides that—
"Nothing in this Act shall he construed as having the effect of imposing on the council of any county, county borough, or district., or any other highway authority, any liability for the repair of any road which they would not have been liable to repair if this Act had not been passed."
At the present time there is no liability on any council of any county or county borough or district to repair any one of these roads. Why is it necessary to put in the Bill a statement to the effect that they are not liable? If they were called upon to repair one of these roads, then would be the time for them to object; but by putting in these words you infer that there is somebody else who is legally liable, and the natural inference would be that the owner whose path was taken was to be held liable. At all events it would be a sufficiently good argument for any counsel that as the council was not liable therefore the owner must be. Really the Bill, as far as I can understand, would be exactly the same if this clause were not in it. I have said all that I wish to say to your Lordships on this occasion. No doubt my noble friend will consider the matter before Committee, and will either propose Amendments himself or accept Amendments proposed by other noble Lords concerning these points.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG WORTH: My Lords, I only interpose for a few moments in this debate. If this Bill would have the effect of settling a very vexed question it certainly ought to pass into law, because, as the House is aware, nothing gives greater cause of offence in country districts than disputed rights of way, and

555
there is no more fruitful cause of quarrel amongst neighbours. At the same time I venture to think that this Bill requires extremely careful consideration, and that there are various Amendments which might with advantage be introduced into it. Many of them, of course, require very careful legal consideration, but perhaps as a mere layman I might point out one or two things which your Lordships might think worthy of consideration.
Clause 2 lays down that a way shall be deemed to have been dedicated as a public highway "unless it shall appear that there is sufficient evidence arising during that period negativing the intention to dedicate such way," and those words are repeated a little lower down. It has always been a moot point how this evidence can be satisfactorily produced—that is to say, evidence that a man has no intention of dedicating a public way. It is sometimes held that the closing of a gate or a barrier once or twice a year will have that effect, but occasionally that is denied. There may be no gate or barrier to close in a particular case, and the construction of a new barrier might give rise to great objection and possibly to rioting. If an Amendment could be introduced into this Bill—it is, of course, difficult because we are dealing with a negative—defining some method by which it could be made clear by an owner that he had no intention of dedicating such a way, great good would be done and a difficult point would be cleared up.
Then in Clause 3 there is the provision that—
"in the case of any way which previously to the passing of this Act has been decided by a competent Court not to be a public highway, this Act shall not apply except as from the date of such decision."
I should like to know whether the term "competent Court" would apply to a local authority. In the Memorandum prefixed to the Bill a good deal is said about the duty and action of local authorities in this matter. I have in my mind at the moment a case of a disputed right of way where a man was turned off a certain path of which he claimed to have the right of user. He was turned back and there was a dispute, the matter being subsequently referred to the local authority. The local authority appointed a sub-committee to inquire into it, and after a quite dispassionate inquiry they decided that there was not a right of way here and that the man was in the wrong. Whether technically the local authority
556
were competent to decide the question I do not know, but it seems to me that a decision of that sort one way or the other ought to be taken into consideration at all events as going a long way to settle the matter once and for all.
Speaking generally, I think great care should be taken to prevent going too far in the way of asserting public rights of way over property. of reviving doubtful rights, and of maintaining that the public have a right of way when the thing has not been clearly established. Such action might seriously interfere with a housing or town-planning scheme. For instance, I know a case where a friend of mine purchased a piece of land and proceeded to build a house upon it. Nothing was said by anybody. The house was nearly completed when, at the last possible moment, the local authority suddenly sprung a mine upon this unfortunate person and said there was a public right of way going, if not actually through the house, within five or six yards of it. It was a serious matter, almost necessitating the contemplation of pulling the house down. It is only right, however, that I should say that there were no building by-laws in that district, and that therefore the erection of the house did not come before the local authority in the first instance. But that does not alter the hardship occasioned. Negotiations took place, and a neighbouring landowner who was concerned indirectly came to the rescue and ultimately the matter was settled. I merely quote that instance as showing what danger may be run into if this Bill is passed into law- without due and proper consideration. Short of that, and hoping that these points will be considered when we go into Committee, I think that the Bill may be allowed to pass its Second Reading, and I hope it will have the good effect looked for by its promoters.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I have no intention of interfering with the Second Reading of this Bill, and I rise only for the purpose of affirming what has been said more than once in the course of the discussion—that there are a great many things in this Bill that require careful consideration. I have this generally to observe, that there is here an attempt to remove from the jurisdiction of a jury to a question of positive law, the operation of a particular period of time, of which I entirely disapprove. Juries are by no means reluctant to recognise public rights, and I do not

557
remember a case that I could properly think was wrongly decided against the public, although I know many that were very lightly allowed by the jury to prevail. I entirely differ from the idea that there is any general presumption in a jury's mind against allowing public rights. I am afraid that restrictions of the sort proposed are very likely to produce bad feeling among neighbours, and at all events the tendency of them will be to prevent people doing a good-natured thing in allowing a path over their grounds if it is afterwards to be turned into a question of right. Every one who lives in the country knows that this is a constant subject of quarrel. A great deal of this involves somewhat difficult questions of law, and I think they have been rather lightly dealt with.
My noble friend behind me gave the odd illustration of somebody's watch being borrowed and responsibilities being incurred by reason thereof. I will give an example to show that what he pat as an extravagant hypothesis may really have its counterpart in actual fact. I remember the case of a public-house situated where the road divided into two, and for the convenience of his customers the landlord had two side doors, both of which were open. Somebody by accident tumbled and broke his leg when going from one door to the other, and it was seriously sought to assert that because the public could as a matter of fact and very often did go through these two open doors that established a right of way. That is one of the few cases in which I have known a jury to repudiate the claim. But, speaking seriously on the matter, this House should consider carefully what may be the result of establishing a right of way where there is no such thing as a right of way but where there has been indulgence by good nature. By so doing you may destroy the whole value of a building estate. Certainly with reference to Clause 5, if you are going to insist upon a right the party having the right ought to have the responsibilities also, and a person should not be charged with the repair of a road which he is very anxious indeed not to have through his property. That, however, might be the result of the provision in Clause 5. As I have said, I quite recognise that the general feeling is that this matter is one which requires legislation. That, I think, is all that one ought to admit on this occasion. But I think careful consideration is required to see that the rights of owners are not given away
558
lightly. That is a matter we can take care of in Committee, and I offer no opposition to the Motion for the Second Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I think the House is generally agreed that this Bill ought to be read a second time, and I am myself strongly in sympathy with any movement to preserve for the public rights of way and to prevent them from being defeated by legal technicalities or legal objections. I wish, however, to offer a few observations in regard to this Bill. The noble Lord who introduced it, following the Memorandum which is prefixed to the Bill, practically rested his case upon the theory that when property is settled nobody is capable of dedicating a right of way to the public. I will not enter upon the legal question that arises upon that. But the Bill deals with many more things than that. The Memorandum states that a Bill in substantially the same form was given a Second Reading in the House of Commons. I do not know whether the Bill was there examined, or whether it was in its present shape then, because any small variation might make a great difference in the result.
The drafting of this Bill certainly requires very great attention. The noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, pointed out one thing which I had noticed myself, and which, as far as I can see, is a defect in the Bill—that if any way has been actually enjoyed by the public without interruption for a full period of twenty years, it shall be deemed to have been dedicated as a public highway unless one or two things happen. No period of time in which the twenty years occur is fixed. It might be that in the reign of Henry VIII a piece of land was used by the public for twenty years. In other words, if you can show that in any period in the history of England there has been twenty years' enjoyment of any way, then the presumption to dedicate is established. I am quite sure that is not the intention of the noble Lord, but it is a point that ought to be taken into consideration.
There is only one other thing I would like to say. This Bill is an instance of setting up a law fir England and then adding Scotland by way of a little parenthesis. It is provided in the Bill that in the application of it to Scotland the expression "public highway" shall mean

559
so and so, and it goes on to the objectionable form of legislation by reference. You are comparing two different systems of law. The system of law in Scotland relating to this matter is different from the system of law in England. I do not wish to take exception in principle to the actual thing proposed in regard to Scotland, but I do say that you might do Scotland the honour of giving her a clause to herself, setting out in language that is applicable to Scottish law what it is you propose. I hope that this will be. turned into a good and useful Bill by a thorough consideration in Committee, prior to which stage I think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill ought to give a little time in order that members of your Lordships' House may take advice as to the meaning of the respective clauses, and prepare Amendments.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I shall support the Second Reading of this Bill on the ground stated by the noble Lord, that it will put a stop to unnecessary and acrimonious litigation which always occurs on this kind of subject, and on the further ground that it is very important in the present day that country paths and country walks should be as open to the public as possible. If this is to be obtained, it seems to me that you should not only accelerate and assist the establishment of rights of way, whether the right has been dedicated by presumption or otherwise to the public, but that you should also get rid of the very cumbrous and inadequate method of defeating a right of way. No doubt every one has come across cases where when a person is trespassing it is necessary, if you are to strictly maintain your rights, that you should put that person to considerable inconvenience by shutting the gate when he does not expect it, and sending him back a mile and a half on his way. Therefore I think it is necessary that there should be some simpler and more intelligible and better known way of establishing the anti-presumption to dedication than there is at present. I was speaking on one occasion to a promoter of this Bill, and he said, "If you put up a notice over your road to say that people only use the road by your permission and indulgence, that is a clear proof that you do not intend to dedicate." But I am not quite certain that that would be so taken. I think that there ought to be an easier method established by which you can indicate your
560
intention, and that it should be inserted in the Bill.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, before the Bill is read a second time I should like to say, with respect to the observations of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to the application of the Bill to Scotland, that I do not regard that as at all an important part of the Bill. These clauses were inserted in Grand Committee in the other House. They were no part of the original Bill, and I quite agree that it is not at all a convenient method of legislation; and for my part I should very much prefer that these clauses should be omitted and that the Scottish case should be dealt with in a separate Bill. With regard to the observations of Lord Zouche that the Bill might interfere with town-planning schemes, I would point out that in the Town Planning Act there is power given to close any footpaths. Therefore the Bill would not interfere in any way with that Act. The other objections raised seem to me to be objections for-Committee, and I can only say that when the Bill is in Committee I shall be ready carefully to consider all the objections which have been made, and possibly to modify the Bill. With regard to the main principle—namely, dealing with footpaths where the difficulty is great in consequence of settlements in tail—there has practically been no objection raised on the part of your Lordships. I think that the debate has been a very satisfactory one in that respect. inasmuch as the main principle of the Bill is now admitted.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on. Thursday the 30 th instant.

PERJURY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have only a word to say in moving the Third Reading of this Bill. I put. off this stage the other day because of a misprint. The misprint, it appears now, was merely a printer's error, and therefore I need not move any Amendment.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.
THE EARL OR DENBIGH THE EARL OR DENBIGH rose to call attention to the following net receipts of duty on Irish grown tobacco during the past six years, viz.:—

£

1905

736

1906

2,155

1907

5,920

1908

5,168

1909

6,232

1910

11,785

and to the fact that these remarkable results are mainly due to the encouragement given to this "infant industry" by remitting one-third of the Excise Duty down to the close of 1909; and to ask His Majesty's Government in what way this encouragement differs from the "bolstering" lately denounced by the President of the Board of Agriculture on behalf of the Government; whether His Majesty's Government will now reconsider their refusal to encourage the production of home-grown sugar on the same lines as they have encouraged Irish tobacco, and, in the event of this refusal being continued, on what principle they base their action.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not know that I need make any apology for bringing this subject again before the notice of the House. I was very much struck by the figures which were given about ten days ago in the House of Commons, and which I have put down on the Paper, relating to the progress of the tobacco industry in Ireland, and I call to mind the fact that when I asked for similar encouragement to be given to the infant sugar industry in this country the noble Earl who responded for the Government—the President of the Board of Agriculture, who I am sorry is not able to be here to-day—informed us that the Government would have absolutely nothing to do with the policy of what he called bolstering or dry-nursing an infant industry. Having regard to that, I think it is only fair to point out; that His Majesty's Government were engaged in this act of bolstering or dry-nursing with very singular success in Ireland up to two years ago, when the encouragement which had been given by this method was replaced by an official grant. Perhaps I shall be told that the Government were only continuing what had been started by the previous Govern-
562
ment. That may be so, but putting aside the fact that I am not aware that one Chancellor of the Exchequer can bind his successor in any way or that there was any real necessity for His Majesty's Government to continue that rebate of Excise Duty, they not only continued it until the five years had expired for which it had been promised by the late Government, but they continued it for another five years and apparently changed their minds later and substituted a definite grant. Therefore when I am told that His Majesty's Government will have nothing whatever to do with encouragement given on these lines, I must say it seems to me nothing short of what I will call official hypocrisy.
Then I may be told that these two particular cases have nothing whatever in common, and that the Irish tobacco industry was a purely experimental one whilst the sugar industry is not experimental. If that is the contention put forward by His Majesty's Government, I am afraid they know very little indeed with regard to the technicalities of the beet-sugar industry, because it is in absolutely time experimental stage as regards cultivation on a large scale, and there is a great deal to be learned both by the farmers and by practical men in this country with regard to the best methods of carrying it out. I am afraid, therefore, that there is only one conclusion to be, drawn, and that is that His Majesty's Government were willing to violate their feelings by encouraging Irish tobacco because the demand was backed up by the votes of eighty Irish Members in the other House, and because if they had refused to do so those eighty Irish Members would have made the situation extremely unpleasant. I do feel that we have legitimate grievance against His Majesty's Government in that they should refuse to English agriculture what they have been willing to allow to Irish industry simply because it was backed up by the persistence of the Irish Members.
What I complain of is the official attitude with regard to this, as exemplified more especially by the Board of Agriculture. I am extremely sorry to speak in the absence of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, and I would have put off this Question again if it had not been that the Notice Paper is rather full, and I thought it would he difficult to bring it on in

563
the near future. What I complain of is that the noble Earl and those with him seem unable to see beyond the boundaries of their own blotting pads. What we want them to realise is that this is a very big question, and not one to be treated as if it were a matter of putting up a factory for the manufacture of boots or any article such as that. What we want in this country is to let people back to the land, and it is no use talking about bringing people back to the laud unless you have something to bring I hem back to. Small holdings are all right in their way, but that is a mere trifling with the question. What the country is really crying out for is for industries that will give a great deal of rural employment, which will encourage the building of cottages and give employment in country districts, and I submit that there is no industry in the world which does this to the same extent as the sugar industry, as has been proved in all the countries where it has flourished.
There is an idea amongst many people that you must have cheap labour, and that therefore this is not a desirable industry to introduce into rural districts. I believe that to be an entire mistake. You want a considerable amount of labour, but not by any means necessarily cheap. Wages on the Continent are going up, and although in some places labour is cheap, in a great many places where the industry flourishes the labour is by no means cheap. I was in the Magdeburg district the other day, the great centre of the sugar industry in Germany, and I saw the barracks and other arrangements kept there for housing the large numbers of Polish girls who are brought every year for the beet season. Something like 700 of them are imported every year into the Magdeburg district alone, but they are not cheap. I was told that this labour costs the authorities on an average 3s. a day, which I do not think anybody can say is cheap female labour. Therefore I do ask His Majesty's Government to consider this question on the merits of the case, and not to treat it in the very narrow-minded and short-sighted manner which they have hitherto done. We are doing everything we can to bring employment into rural districts. His Majesty's Government give grants to the unemployed. We know perfectly well that the one thing which is wanted is rural labour. Farm colonies have been established which I am afraid often result in mere waste of 'policy, and if only an industry such as this could be firmly
564
established, more would be done in the way of feeding hungry men than by any other scheme now before the country.
The whole success of the movement depends on the factories, and it is on the factories that the brunt of the difficulties falls. We are not asking His Majesty's Government to aid an industry which cannot stand by itself after it has once got started; it is simply and solely on account of the initial difficulties which must meet the establishment of a new industry such as this. For instance, the successful running of a beet factory depends entirely on being able to get the supplies of beet from within a small circumference round the factory in order to reduce the cost of carriage. Obviously when you first start a factory in connection with an industry with which farmers are entirely unaccustomed you have to cover quite a large area in order to get your supplies of beet. You will not get any one farmer to grow a really large, quantity, and you have to go out a long way over the country to he able to secure the beet supply. The bulk of the expense of carriage to the factory will fall on the factory, and when you are dealing with 50,000 tons of sugar-beet an extra 2s. a ton which the factory would have to pay for carriage amounts to five per cent. on the whole capital of the company and makes a serious difference; whereas after two or three years, when farmers see that it is a paying crop awl when they realise themselves what they are able to do, farmers near the factory will grow larger quantities, and the factories will be able to draw their supplies from nearer areas and the carriage will be correspondingly less.
Those are practical questions which I ask the Government to consider. I do not see that I am asking anything out of the way in urging upon His Majesty's Government to consider whether they cannot do something to help the factories to make a commercial success during the first period of difficulty. I do not care how it is done, but I do not see that there is any practical way of doing it except by the method I suggest. As I said in the previous discussion on February 7 last, it is not practicable to do anything from the Development Fund because by the terms of the Act under which that Fund came into existence it is not allowable to devote money for the purpose as assisting an enterprise trading for profit; and you cannot give grants to the

565
farmers who grow the beet so that they could offer to take lower prices from the factories because there you run up against the Brussels Convention. The grants given by the Board of Agriculture to agricultural colleges for experimental purposes are all very well so far as they go, but they do not affect the question or help the factories. There is only one way in which you can help the factories, and that is by enabling them to sell their finished sugar at a fair profit and by giving them a temporary protection against the established industry that exists on the Continent.
THE EARL OR DUNRAVEN: My Lords, t he noble Earl has referred so pointedly to the little assistance given to the experimental growing of tobacco in Ireland that I should like to say a word or two on that point. I am fully in sympathy with my noble friend in his desire to see something done to start the sugar industry in the United Kingdom, but I am not sure that he is entirely wise in basing his request to the Government on the encouragement that has been given to Irish tobacco. I do not see how the sugar industry could possibly be encouraged on the same lines. The cases are so absolutely and entirely different. I do not think the growing of sugar-beet or the manufacture of sugar has ever been forbidden in Great Britain. It must not be forgotten that the cultivation and manufacture of tobacco was a considerable industry and a profitable one in Ireland, and that it was forbidden by law and put down by force. Therefore I think that in an industry of that kind private individuals have at least some moral claim upon the State to help them to re-establish an industry that had been previously destroyed by the action of the State.
I have no doubt, as the. noble Earl says, that there will be a good deal to be done in the way of experimenting in sugar-beet growing, but still I fancy that any practical farmer who can grow manures can grow sugar-beet. But in starting the growth of tobacco in Ireland we were starting the growth of, practically speaking, an entirely new plant, and exhaustive experiments as to the most suitable soil and the most suitable manures, if any, were necessary, and also to determine what varieties of tobacco were most likely to be successfully and profitably grown. Therefore so far as tobacco is concerned the experiments had to be elaborate, lengthy, and exhaustive,
566
and I may say also for those who undertook them exceedingly expensive. It is true that the actual cultivation of tobacco is tolerably easy, but, on the other hand, the harvesting of the crop requires skilled labour; the curing and rehandling of the crop is an exceedingly difficult and technical business, and labour had to be trained in order to undertake that kind of work. I take it that the process of converting the raw material of sugar into the manufactured article is perfectly well understood in Great Britain, as it is on the Continent. The two commodities are in totally different. categories.
Sugar, after all, is a food, and tobacco a luxury. I quite admit that it is such a universal luxury that. it may be looked upon as a necessity, but still it is a luxury, whereas sugar is a food, and that is recognised in the enormous difference between the duty on the two articles. The duty on sugar is 10d. per cwt.; the duty on tobacco is 3s. 6d. on the lb. If you look at it ad valorem the duty on ordinary tobacco, the tobacco that ordinary people smoke, is from 1,000 to 1,200 per cent., whereas the duty on sugar is about 3 or 4 per cent. That makes an enormous difference in itself. I do not see how it is possible for any Government, however willing they may he, to encourage the growth of sugar by differentiating between the Excise Duty and the Import Duty, because the Import Duty is already so very low; and I do not think that any Government could stereotype an Import Duty and say that in no circumstances should sugar be admitted absolutely duty free. On the other hand the duty on tobacco is so enormous that it is perfectly easy to discriminate between the Excise Duty and the duty on the imported leaf.
And I am bound to point out, in the matter of Irish tobacco, that the Treasury have made a very good thing of it. May I speak for the moment of my own experience? In the three years 1907, 1908, and 1909 the Treasury received from me £6,300 in the way of duty, and I received by way of assistance from them £1,387, so that the Treasury made a net profit out of me of, practically speaking, £5,000—not a bad business for the Treasury. At the present moment I have in store 30,000 lbs. of tobacco, which will be worth to me £750 and will be worth to the State £5.500, so that on the whole transaction the Treasury arc getting a good deal out

567
of it, and I venture to suggest that they are getting rather more than a fair share. My noble friend behind me, Lord Denbigh, perhaps rather over-estimates what has been done for tobacco growing in Ireland. The Department of Agriculture in Ireland have done a great deal. They got expert opinion and all the information that it was possible to acquire, and the Treasury made an allowance for a time, and for a limited quantity of tobacco, of 1s. in the lb. off the duty. After a while—I think two years ago—instead of ls. in the lb. a definite sum of £5,000 a year was given to be divided amongst those who were experimenting over 100 acres in different parts of Ireland. The Treasury, I am sure inadvertently, got much the better of the growers by that bargain. They calculated that £5,000 a year was equivalent to the rebate, but they unaccountably forgot to take into consideration all the tobacco that was in bond at the time. The result is that the £5,000 a Year is not nearly the equivalent of the 1s. in the lb. rebate.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: The amount of the grant was £6,000.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I thought it was £5,000, but it is immaterial to my argument. As far as I am personally concerned, I know by experience that the change from the rebate to the fixed sum reduced the grant that I received for the seven acres I am allowed to cultivate by exactly 50 per cent. Speaking again of my own personal experience, I get this allowance for seven acres only. Seven acres is quite sufficient to make a small experiment, but it is absolutely insufficient to demonstrate with any kind of certainty whether tobacco can be grown and cured and made a commercial success of. As a matter of fact. I have been growing for the last three years from twenty-five to thirty acres of tobacco, and if you spread the little assistance I have received over the whole of those acres it conies to something very small indeed—something less than 3d. on the lb. These experiments have been tried in Ireland now for some few years. I would like to impress upon His Majesty's Government that the experimental stage in no way can be said to be completed. We have demonstrated two facts—that you can produce a good article saleable at a fair price, whether of American tobacco or of Turkish tobacco;
568
and that the crop is of immense value as employing labour.
As to the employment of labour, I would like to show how that has worked out with me. In 1909 I grew thirty acres of tobacco. Those thirty acres employed in planting and growing 59 men and boys and 4 girls—a total of 63; in harvesting there were employed 85 men and boys and 69 girls—total 154; and in grading and packing 35 men and boys and 29 girls—a total of 64. Your Lordships will see at once that an industry of that kind would be an enormous advantage in a purely agricultural district. The tobacco is sown at this time of the year. It is planted out in May, it is harvested after the hay is all got in, and the grading and packing goes on up till Christmas or even later. I would emphasise the great value of the industry, especially in the employment of girls who would otherwise get no employment at all. An agricultural labourer with two girls who can get work in this business practically doubles or trebles his income. As I have said, the experimental stage is by no means completed. It takes a long time to push a new article like Irish tobacco on the market. We cannot tell yet how far it can be profitably grown. In the first year or two expenses were very high. Naturally the expenses of cultivation and of curing tend to diminish in proportion as your hands get skilled, and in proportion also as you extend the area; and it is obvious that the proportion of labour diminishes rapidly as the area of cultivation is extended.
At present we get 2d. on the lb. Excise allowance, and I would like to impress on His Majesty's Government that that 2d. does not anything like make up for the great expense to which growers and rehandlers are put in conforming to the Excise regulations. There is a whole volume of very onerous Excise regulations to be complied with. A grower has to take out a licence, which costs him five guineas; he has to find security of £50 if he wants to grow an acre of tobacco; and he is responsible in the sum of £150 for every acre under tobacco in case the Excise regulations are not complied with. He has to keep most elaborate accounts and send in most elaborate returns. I am not complaining of the Excise regulations. I am sure they are necessary and right,

569
and I would like to say from my own knowledge that the Inland Revenue officers do all they possibly can, consistent with their instructions, to avoid being inconvenient. But I do want His Majesty's Government to understand that complying with these Excise regulations is exceedingly onerous and expensive. I hope His Majesty's Government will look into that matter, because to the growers and the whole industry it is of absolute importance. I shall be glad, and Irish growers generally will be glad, to give the Department every assistance in investigating that case, and I am certain that it would then be realised that the present allowance of 2d. in the lb. is absolutely insufficient, and that a much more substantial sum should be given in order to recoup the growers and rehandlers the great expense they are put to in carrying out the Excise regulations.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, like the noble Earl opposite I am extremely sorry that my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture is not in his place, to reply to the Question on the Paper, but I will endeavour to do so to the best of my ability. From the earlier remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, I felt considerable encouragement, but in view of the latter part of his speech I am afraid I must treat him as hostile as he came down to the same point as Lord Denbigh and asked for money.
I will first touch on the history of the matter. The growing of tobacco in Ireland was prohibited by Statute in 1660. In 1779 an Act was passed by the British Parliament allowing tobacco to be grown once more in Ireland. Prohibition was again enforced by an Act in the year 1831, by which time the industry had grown considerably and was being carried On at a very fair profit. The noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, stated that a great deal of skilled labour was involved in the carrying on of this industry, and I took considerable pains this morning to find out why there were no records of any kind of the method in which tobacco was grown between the years 1779 and 1831. Apparently no records were kept at all, but I am assured that the conditions were entirely different both as regards wages and the power to get labour. From the time when the growing of tobacco in Ireland was last prohibited in the year 1831 the question was not raised again until 1903, when Mr. Ritchie gave it his consideration, and, as
570
the noble Earl knows, a considerable rebate was allowed.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Only on small quantities.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: That is so. The concession allowed by Mr. Ritchie in the first instance was limited to selected growers on a limited area of about 100 acres. The principal growers are Colonel Everard and the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven. That went on till the year 1907, when Mr. Redmond's Bill was passed into law permitting tobacco to be grown again in Ireland. without restriction for commercial purposes. The Government then decided that the whole position of the industry was changed; they reconsidered the position, and in lieu of continuing the rebate, which had been granted for experiments only and which could not properly be granted in respect of tobacco grown for commercial purposes, they provided a lump sum of £6,000 a year. I should have stated that before the rebate was done away with the Department of Agriculture asked for an extension of time in which to carry out their experiments—I believe that was in the year 1906—and the Government allowed the experimental time to be continued until 1913. Therefore when in 1907 Mr. Redmond's Bill altered the whole position of the industry the Government agreed to provide a lump sum of £6,000 a year for each year until 1913, to be spent by the Board of Agriculture at their discretion on experiments in tobacco growing. The object of the change was to avoid the directly protective system of a definite rebate for each lb. produced, and it was hoped that the Department would spend some of the £6,000 in other ways—on grants in aid of buildings or plant and technical instruction. The experiment will expire with the disposal of the crop grown in 1913, and the Department of Agriculture, now charged with the duty of superintending it, will then be able to report finally to the Government on the commercial possibilities of the crop from the point of view of Irish agriculture.
I turn now to the figures which the noble Earl quotes as showing the "remarkable results" of the encouragement given to Irish tobacco, and which are by themselves misleading. The figures were supplied to Mr. Redmond by Mr. Hobhouse in the House of Commons on March 7 with the warning that in comparing them it should

571
be borne in mind that on all tobacco grown in Ireland up to the end of 1909 a rebate of one-third the duty was allowed, while since that date the duty has been charged in full and a fixed grant of £6,000 a year has been paid to the Board of Agriculture instead; also that on April 30, 1909, the duties on Irish and other home-grown tobacco were increased. Mr. Hobhouse pointed out that the figures for 1909, therefore, are swollen by the increased duty, and that the figures for 1910 are still further swollen by the absence of rebate. Though the industry may be progressing most favourably, the figures given hardly meet the actual facts of the case.
The position taken by His Majesty's Government. in the matter has been clear and consistent from the start. On coming into office in 1905 they found that a certain rebate had been given to this industry in Ireland, and they decided to continue it. Had they not continued it there would have been a great deal of expense incurred by those who had actually started the industry in Ireland, and the Government were unwilling to put them to that unnecessary expense if it could possibly be avoided, always on the understanding that it was simply an experiment and not run for profit.
572
I pass now to the final point—the analogy between the case of Irish tobacco and the cultivation of sugar-beet. The noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, will recollect that in the debate in this House on July 17, 1906, he admitted that he regarded it as proved that. sugar-beet could be grown at a profit in this country, and he acknowledged then that the industry was not entirely in its infancy. In answer to Lord Crewe, the noble Earl pointed out that the growing of sugar-beet was one thing and the manufacture of sugar was another, and he wanted to have the possibility of manufacturing proved. In reply to that Lord Crewe said that the two things were not on an equal basis, because while it was more or less acknowledged that sugar-beet could be grown it was not acknowledged that tobacco could be grown. The whole point is this. The cultivation of Irish tobacco is an experiment altogther, and much as we should like to encourage all industries it is practically impossible to encourage industries which are not experimental. I am afraid that my answer will not be regarded by the noble Earl as at all satisfactory.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-narrow, quarter past Four o'clock.