Lords Sitting of 11 December 1912

BARONY OF FURNIVALL.
Report made from the Committee for Privileges—
That the Barony of Furnivall is an ancient Barony in fee:
That it is proved by the Writ of Summons addressed to Thomas de Furnivall in the 23rd year of Edward I and the other evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner that the Barony of Furnivall was in the reign of King Edward I vested in Thomas de Furnivall:
That the Barony of Furnivall was vested by descent in Joane, daughter of William, Lord Furnivall, and her husband Thomas Nevill was summoned to Parliament and sat in Parliament as Lord Furnivall:
That the Barony devolved upon her daughter and heir Maude Nevill, whose husband John Talbot was summoned to Parliament and sat in Parliament as a Peer of the Realm:
That John Talbot, Lord Furnivall was created Earl of Shrewsbury and the Barony fell into abeyance at the death of Gilbert, 7th Earl of Shrewsbury in 1616 between his three daughters, Lady Mary, Countess of Pembroke, Lady Elizabeth, Countess of Kent, and Lady Alathea, Countess of Arundel:
That the last-mentioned Countess of Arundel succeeded to the Barony of Furnivall by the death of her sisters without issue and the Barony devolved in her issue until it fell into abeyance at the death of Edward, Duke of Norfolk in 1777:
That Charles Botolph Joseph, Lord Mowbray Segrave and Stourton, and the Honourable Mary Frances Katherine Petre are the coheirs to the said Barony:
That the Barony of Furnivall is at His Majesty's disposal:
Read, and agreed to; and resolved and adjudged accordingly; and Resolution and Judgment to be laid before His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
Ordered that all deeds, documents and papers produced on behalf of the Claimant by her agents, be delivered to the said agents.

BARON CROFTON.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Arthur Edward Lowther Crofton, Baron Crofton of Mote, in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland, has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords this day, that the right of the Baron Crofton to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, in the exceptional circumstances connected with electrical wiring and fitting, the House of Commons Committee, which was presided over by Sir Henry Kimber, passed Clause 83 of this Bill. This clause has been considerably altered by the Committee of your Lordships' House presided over by the Duke of Wellington. The Corporation of Sheffield do not desire at this moment to have the matter debated in your Lordships' House, but they wish to give notice that they will use their best endeavours to persuade the House of Commons to reinstate the clause in its original form and send it back to this House. I make this statement because I think it is only right that your Lordships should have notice that the Corporation of Sheffield are not satisfied with the way in which this clause has been dealt with by the Committee of your Lordships' House.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am glad, in view of the circumstances, that the noble Lord has taken the course he has of giving your Lordships notice that while the promoters accept the Bill in a technical sense now, they do not accept it as final, and that if they can persuade the other House to disagree with your Lordships' Committee they will endeavour to do so. That being the case I will not to-day go into the merits of the question. But I

161
should like to state that the clause in question as the Bill leaves this House is in the form of the model clause of your Lordships' House. Personally I think the decision of your Lordships' Committee was a right one—it certainly was not an extreme one; and if the other House do disagree with your Lordships' Committee in the Amendments, your Lordships will understand that this is a model clause which has been amended slightly this session but amended only with the object of making its original meaning perfectly clear.
LORD SOUTHWARK: I would point out, in view of what the noble Earl the Lord Chairman has stated, that there are, in the opinion of the Corporation of Sheffield, special circumstances in connection with their case.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It would, of course, be inconvenient at such a moment to go into the merits of this case, with which I cannot pretend to be fully conversant. At the same time I think it is only right to say that the matter to which the noble Lord opposite has called attention concerns one of the model clauses of your Lordships' House, and though we shall treat with profound respect the action taken in the other House we cannot hold out any hope that we shall vary our decision unless the House think right to do so.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I am sorry that the Sheffield Corporation have decided to take the course indicated by the noble Lord opposite. I certainly had hoped, after the matter had been so much discussed, that the Sheffield Corporation would have been satisfied and would have allowed matters to take their course. They are, however, quite within their rights in taking the line they propose to take; but I should like to say that the manufacturers of the country will take a very strong line in the opposite direction, and I hope your Lordships will retain this clause, which you have on more than one occasion adopted.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: There are some further Amendments to this Bill, but it is not necessary to state them to the House. They are purely drafting Amendments, and do not touch the point to which attention has been drawn this evening.
Moved, That the further Amendments be agreed to.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Amendments made.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Petition in favour of; of the National Vigilance Association of Scotland; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): The Amendment standing in my name is the one which I undertook at the last stage to put down. I have placed it on the Paper in its present form for the reason that the dates vary on which tenancies which in short may be described as Lady Day tenancies are determined. One date that is occasionally used is Candlemas—namely, February 2; another is old Lady Day, April 6; and there are also various days in May on which these tenancies are determined. The provision in the new clause which I now move to insert is consistent with the arrangement at which we arrived on the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
"2. Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary a notice to determine a tenancy of a holding or any part thereof on a day earlier than one year after the date of the service of the notice shall be void.
"Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to—

"(a) a notice to determine a tenancy at Candlemas or Lady Day or any other day not later than the thirtieth day of June; or

"(b) a notice to determine a tenancy of an allotment given under section thirty of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908."—(Lord Lucas).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Determination of Questions.
3. If any question arises under this Act as to whether a notice to quit has been given in view of the sale or offering for sale of a holding or part thereof, or as to whether the provisions of this Act with regard to the giving of any information or notice in connection with an agreement for sale have been complied with by a landlord or by a tenant, or as to whether a notice to quit is a notice to which this Act applies, the question may at any time after the notice is given be referred by the landlord or the tenant to arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act. 1908.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Hylton, who is unfortunately unable to be present to-day, I move the Amendment to Clause 3 which stands in his name, to leave out the words "at any time" ["the question may at any time"] and to insert in their place the words "within one calendar month." The clause, as your Lordships see, provides that if any question arises as to whether a notice to quit has been given in view of the sale or offering for sale of a holding or part thereof, or as to whether the provisions with regard to the giving of any information or notice in connection with an agreement for sale have been complied with, and so forth, and if there is a dispute about the matter the question may—
"at any time after the notice is given be referred by the landlord or the tenant to arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908."
It is suggested by my noble friend Lord Hylton that the words "at any time" would be dangerously wide, because they might have the effect of giving a litigious tenant power to harass his landlord some considerable time after the matter had been closed, and, of course, the same thing might conceivably happen from the other side—namely, on the part of the landlord. Therefore my noble friend proposes in his Amendment to limit the time by omitting the words "at any time" and inserting "within one calendar month." It has been represented to me that possibly the House might think that one calendar month rather erred too much on the side of shortness, and that a longer time might judiciously be inserted. In regard to that I am in the hands of your Lordships. But the words "at any time" would be too vague and wide and would give rise to the danger of possible litigation long after the time when it was right that such litigation, if you can call, it litigation, should take place. In
164
other words it would open the door to rather vexatious proceedings. That is, as far as I understand, the argument of my noble friend Lord Hylton, and I beg on his behalf to move the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 3, line 3, leave out ("at any time") and insert ("within one calendar month").—(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)
LORD LUCAS: There is a difficulty in the way of accepting the Amendment, and it is this. The procedure in the clause is intended to meet what one might call a question of fact. In the earlier stages of the Bill when we were discussing the counter-notice we laid down a certain definite period after which it could not be given. I think we gave two months from the time when the landlord served the notice as the period within which the tenant had to serve the counter-notice, because that was, as far as the tenant was concerned, a question of policy. The tenant had to make up his mind definitely whether he would go at the end of the year or serve a counter-notice. But this particular procedure is, as I have said, for the purpose of deciding certain questions of fact. Under the procedure as laid down in the Bill the landlord has to give notice that he wants to take advantage of the exceptions which the Bill makes. He has to state in the notice the reason why it is being given, and why the tenant cannot therefore claim the extra year. It might be quite impossible for the tenant to find out within a certain time whether or not the reason the landlord gives is actually the case. For instance, the landlord may give notice of his intention, let us say, to create small holdings, which is one of the objects for which he may give notice under Clause 2. Then suppose something happens to deter the landlord from creating small holdings; or it may be brought to the tenant's notice, for instance, that the landlord has some other intention in his mind. You cannot confine a thing of that sort within a definite fixed time. The question of fact on which the tenant will make his appeal—as to whether the land really is going to be used for the purpose specified by the landlord when he gave notice—is a question that the tenant must be given time, it seems to me, to determine. Under ordinary conditions the tenant would naturally be anxious to know at the earliest possible moment what his fate was

165
to be. If owing to the form in which the landlord gives the notice the tenant thinks there is some reason on which he may appeal to arbitration, he is in a state of uncertainty as to whether the decision of the arbitrators will be in his favour or not, and therefore he will be just as anxious as the landlord to get an early settlement of the question. So that under ordinary conditions he will naturally appeal at once. The only case in which he would not be able to appeal at once would be where some change takes place after the notice has been served which, in the tenant's opinion, is fair ground for supposing that the landlord will not be able to carry out his original intention, and therefore it is undesirable to put in any definite time as suggested in the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord has, perhaps, given a reason why the words "one calendar month" will not do, but that is no reason for leaving it open for the tenant to raise the question at any time hereafter. I am sure the noble Lord in charge of the Bill does not wish any more than anybody else that an indefinite time should be given. Could not we put in the words "after the notice is given and before it has expired," or something of that kind? That would give plenty of time in which to raise the question, and at the same time would avoid giving any length of time that you like to mention.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The object which my noble friend Lord Zouche has in view is very evident, and I think most of your Lordships will agree that if it were feasible it is a very proper Amendment to move —namely, that a limit should be put upon the possibility of raising this question, so that after a certain time both the landlord and the tenant should know exactly where they stood. That seems on the face of it a very reasonable proposal; and no doubt the phrase "at any time" opens up a vista as if years after the question might be again raised. My noble friend who has just sat down suggested that instead of the limit being one month the currency of the notice to quit might be the limit. I had great sympathy with the Amendment when it was put on the Paper, but I am bound to say that having listened to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture it seems to me that the Amendment is not feasible. It is clearly necessary that the
166
tenant should have the right to appeal to arbitration as soon as the facts transpire upon which he can act; and it may easily be, if, for example, a landlord claims exemption from the operation of the Act because he is selling with a view to small holdings, that after a short time it may appear that that intention cannot be carried out. In that case it would he fair for the tenant to have the right to call in question before a board of arbitration the exemption for which the landlord had claimed. I can conceive similar cases in which necessity might be laid on the tenant to wait until the facts transpired before going to arbitration. Therefore I am bound to say that in the circumstances the Amendment is not feasible.
Then comes the proposal of my noble friend Lord Camperdown. I think that ideally his proposal is probably right, but it is rather late in the course of the Bill for us to put in an Amendment of that kind, which would require to be very carefully drafted; and as a matter of fact I do not think it is likely that this question will be raised after the estate has changed hands and the notice to quit has taken effect. No doubt if it could have been put in at this stage it would, perhaps, be better to say that there should be no opportunity of appeal after the period of the notice had expired; but the danger is so small that think it would be hardly worth while to delay the Bill in order to put those words in.
LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: After what has been said in the course of this discussion I do not wish to press the Amendment. At the same time, I think this is a question which might have been susceptible of some compromise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Lucas.)
LORD CHANNING: My Lords, in asking the indulgence which your Lordships generously grant to newcomers to this House I do so with somewhat more confidence because it seems to me that the efforts of those who really care about agriculture and have tried in their way to lift these problems above the mere Party and class controversy have borne fruit, and that we are nearer in dealing with them to a stage of common ground where we can eliminate the friction

167
between different interests and do something to promote the continuous development of the agricultural industry. I am quite aware that I may seem to be trespassing rather late in the day on your Lordships' attention, but I have had exceptional opportunities of knowing the opinions of the tenant farmers of this country for many years in the Chambers of Agriculture and in the recent discussions on this subject. At a previous stage of this Bill my noble friend Lord Barnard laid before your Lordships' House and before my noble friend on the Government Bench some considerations which were present to the mind of the Central Chamber. I would only say this, that I am confident that the real grievance that is now being suffered by the tenant farmers of this country has the sympathy of every one of your Lordships. I have had the advantage, and it is an advantage which I prize very highly, of serving on more than one great Commission and Inquiry into this question of agriculture, and the fact borne upon the mind of any one who has had the opportunity of thus studying the history and conditions of some of the best managed estates in this country has been this, that the tenant farmers on those estates are those who are most progressive and most tend to advance the interests of agriculture, and that on those estates tenant farmers have the maximum degree of security in the protection of their interests. It is obvious that these sales are increasing not decreasing; they are not so much sales of bankrupt or ill-managed estates, but largely, perhaps increasingly, of portions of the best managed estates, so that the risks to the best type of farmer are even greater. That is the standpoint from which I would venture, with your Lordships' leave, to make one or two observations on this Bill before it passes to another place.
Lord Barnard the other day laid some of these considerations before you, and there is no doubt that there has been very sharp criticism among working tenant farmers upon the provisions of this Bill. I do not myself concur in the wholesale condemnation of the Bill or I may also add of the Report of the Departmental Committee upon which my noble friend on the Front Bench so much relies in defending the form of the Bill as it is laid before you. But I would venture to say that the feeling of the practical working farmers of this country is this—that the real grievance,
168
the vital grievance which has aroused so much anxiety and to a certain extent a great deal of irritation among that class of men has been in their opinion ignored both by the Report of the Departmental Committee and also in the Bill of His Majesty's Government. The real point of the whole question is the decision which was given in the County Court case of Clewlow v, Briscoe, that the compensation for disturbance clause passed in 1906 and afterwards embodied in the Consolidation Bill of 1908 does not apply to the case of tenant farmers who have notices to quit served upon them in order that the landlord may be able to sell his estate with the advantage to the new purchaser of coming into an estate of which he will have immediate possession with freedom to handle. That is the real grievance which they want dealt with and which is not dealt with by this Bill.
It has always seemed to me that it would be far better for agriculture and would not injure the landlord or anybody else if there was a business footing between the two parties to an agricultural contract, in which there might be absolute certainty of justice and fair-play all round. But there is a sense of deep injustice on the part of farmers that when a landowner is able to sell his estate for a higher price owing to giving notice to quit some consideration should not be given to them in those circumstances. Until the County Court decision to which I have referred was given they were firmly of the conviction—and their advisers, the great valuers and estate agents who dispose of these questions as between landlord and tenant, advised them—that they were protected by this section and would receive reasonable consideration for being expelled in this way. I have read, and I have no doubt my noble friend Lord Haversham has fully considered, the evidence given before his Committee by one of the ablest and most respected agricultural agents and experts in the country, Mr. Anker Simmons. In his view this was the essential point of the whole question. He said that in the previous two or three years there had been many cases in which he personally knew of vast losses sustained by tenant farmers owing to Section 11 of the Act of 1908 not being applicable to the cases of tenants who were turned out in these circumstances; and he went on to give an instance which I think any one of your Lordships who reads it will see constitutes a very vivid illustration of real hardship in these cir-

169
cumstances. He describes a case in which he was responsible as the valuer and decider of the relative rights of the two parties, in which the selling landowner, taking this view of Section 11 of the Act of 1908, had deliberately handed over to the purchaser a considerable sum of money in order to cover the claims which the tenants might present to him after he had come into ownership of the land. Mr. Simmons stated in his evidence that while the sale was still pending this decision was come to in the County Court, and that when in the final stage of the proceedings he applied to the purchasing owner and asked him to make good to the tenants out of the sum which had been handed over to him by the selling owner he snapped his fingers in Mr. Simmons's face and said, "They have no claim." He was perfectly entitled to say that. The County Court having decided as it did, there was no legal claim against him, what ever moral claim there might have been. That is a different state of things from what I saw in the newspapers yesterday, where an estate was bought, I think in Cheshire, for industrial purposes and where the seller, receiving, I suppose, a considerable sum for his estate, deliberately released his tenants from a considerable amount of their obligations to him.
What I would press upon my noble friend in charge of the Bill is this. It is, of course, useless at the present stage and in your Lordships' House to do anything more about this Bill. I feel that I owe your Lordships an apology for trespassing upon your time at this late moment. But I do wish to ask my noble friend Lord Lucas—and this is my only opportunity of doing so—whether he will not consider the possibility, when this Bill goes to another place, of dealing with this great and deeply felt grievance of tenant farmers. It seems to me a very real case which ought to be met somehow. The notice of the present Bill precluded any action in your Lordships' House, because a motion to introduce an Amendment of Section 11 of the Act of 1908 would clearly have been out of order under the notice under which this Bill was introduced, so we are powerless here. But I Would ask my noble friend, as representing the Government, whether it might not be possible to meet this, I assure him, very strong and I think not wholly unreasonable demand of the working agriculturists of this country, that something should be done to meet this grievance
170
in addition to the provisions in this Bill. I do not wish to underrate the Bill. Undoubtedly the provision as to counter-notice, especially as improved by Lord St. Levan's Amendment, places the tenant farmer in a much better position for bargaining for fair terms in a new contract of tenancy, and it also gives him elbow room to look for a new farm. But I would ask my noble friend, in conclusion, whether His Majesty's Government cannot consider dealing with the subject in a somewhat wider aspect, either by new legislation or by taking steps to recast the present Bill in another place.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, I stated when introducing this Bill that it was not intended to cover the whole ground. It was, I explained, only what one might term an instalment, but that it was in our opinion as far as it went a measure of some value and one which there was a fair prospect of being able to get through pretty speedily. We never intended that it should be a compensation Bill, and we have carefully avoided in the Bill dealing with that extremely controversial question. I do not wish to say that the present state of affairs with regard to compensation is in every way satisfactory. I do not think we have at all reached what we may call a final settlement with regard to that. But what I would point out to my noble friend is that the difficulties in the way of it are enormous. One has only to read the Report of this very Committee, some of whose recommendations are the cause of this Bill, to see that. They devoted a considerable amount of time to this question of compensation, and anxious as they were to assist tenants they were unable, after having listened to the very evidence which my noble friend quoted, to make any recommendations in favour of altering the existing conditions of compensation. I mention that simply to show that the compensation question is fraught with difficulty in every possible way. Moreover, we have still to see how the present Agricultural Holdings Act works before we can come to any final decision on that particular question.
LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I quite appreciate the difficulties to which my noble friend Lord Channing has alluded, and I can assure him that on the Committee over which I presided we had the most anxious deliberation with regard to

171
the whole matter of compensation, but it was almost impossible for the valuers to say that they could at any time arrive at a proper valuation. Consequently we had to give this up, and we adopted another plan which was popular with the whole of the Committee—namely, the giving of an extended notice. I happened to meet a number of leading farmers yesterday. They were, of course, very open-mouthed with regard to the necessity of giving compensation. I told them what the change was which this Bill would effect, and they said there was no doubt about it that that did make a very great difference in the whole matter and they considered it a great boon to them. Much as I hope my noble friend in charge of the Bill will take up the question of compensation afterwards, I do trust that he will keep this Bill separate and endeavour to pass it as it stands through the House of Commons, because there is no doubt about it that it will be a great boon to the tenants affected. In my opinion the question of compensation cannot be settled except in a different Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

OMNIBUSES AND WORKMEN'S FARES.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government what number of passengers were carried on the London County Council tramways during the year ended March 31, 1912; what proportion of them was carried at workmen's fares; whether workmen's fares are in force on the motorbuses; if not, whether the Government can, under existing legislation, call upon the omnibus companies to run an efficient service of workmen's buses at special fares; and if not, whether the Government will or will not introduce legislation to deal with this matter.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Question which I have put on the Paper I should like in a few words to call your Lordships' attention to the anomalies which exist at the present moment with
172
regard to London traffic authorities. We have a system of underground railways and tubes which are under statutory obligation to provide workmen's fares, and we have a number of tramways outside the metropolitan area which are also under an obligation of the same character. We also have the London County Council tramways within the metropolitan area; they are not for the most part bound to carry passengers at workmen's fares but they voluntarily do so and at very great cost indeed. According to the Traffic Returns of the Board of Trade for 1911 they did so during that year at a loss which amounted to something like £130,000, which is a considerable cost to the London ratepayers. Then we have the London General Omnibus Company and the other 'bus companies who run 'buses all over London and outside it without any duty to provide workmen's fares, and the power of these omnibus companies has recently been increased by the combine which has been so well boomed in the Press.
The position of London is anomalous in this respect. If you go to other towns you find that the Police authority is the town authority. They are the authority which license 'buses, and they are therefore enabled to provide a certain degree of uniformity in the traffic regulations of the town. It is curious that one should have to ask Questions of this sort of His Majesty's Government. One would have thought that there was some authority that could impose this duty upon omnibuses, but the fact of the matter is that we have not got any authority to control the traffic of London. The Royal Commission of 1905 reported in favour of a Traffic Board. Repeatedly requests have been made to His Majesty's Government to give a Traffic Board to London, and only this year the Prime Minister again refused to do it. The Prime Minister having refused, there is nothing for it but to put Questions of this sort to His Majesty's Government direct. The Prime Minister has refused a Traffic Board to London but he has been obliged, on the question of safety, to recognise the absence of a Traffic Board, and has had to appoint a Committee of the House of Commons to investigate the dangers of the streets; but on the question of convenience to the public His Majesty's Government have not given us this Traffic Board. Therefore, as I say, we are obliged to raise this question in this way.
I think a very good case can be made out for the granting of workmen's fares. There are streets in London which are not served by any tramway and which workmen use in order to go to their work. I will take the case of Hammersmith to the City. Great numbers of working men go every morning from Hammersmith to the City and the omnibus is their means of conveyance. I could quote other lines, but I do not think it is necessary to do so. There is a society called the National Association for the Extension of Workmen's Trams and Trains. It is an association which I believe has the support of all the trade unions and all the working men's organisations in London. This association approached the motor-'bus companies by a deputation last February and asked them to give workmen's fares. The 'bus companies replied, "We will consider the matter." They have gone on considering the matter now for nearly twelve months, and the workmen have got no nearer, so far as they know, than they were last February. I think the 'bus companies have been rather coquetting with this question for some time, because in the Traffic Report of the Board of Trade the passage occurs, with reference to omnibuses, that "workmen's fares may be introduced on omnibuses." I cannot help feeling that that passage is due either to a feeling on the part of the Board of Trade officials who were on that Committee that workmen's fares ought to be introduced, or to a feeling on the part of the 'bus companies that they will not long be allowed to retain this very peculiar anomally.
There is one other point to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention with regard to this matter. It does seem a very unfair thing on the ratepayers of London. London ratepayers have invested in the tramways undertaking something like £10,000,000. They provide workmen's fares and have exhibited no desire that this obligation should be taken away from them and that they should be relieved of this expense. But their undertaking is being very hard pressed by the London General Omnibus Company, whose 'buses are run for the benefit of the shareholders, and consequently the enterprise of the ratepayers in which their money is invested is being very hard hit by a commercial company which is under no obligation and so far as I am aware cannot be made by anybody except by His Majesty's Govern-
174
ment to perform what I venture to think is an ordinary duty that they owe to the City which they are exploiting. I beg to ask the Questions standing in my name.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I think I ought to express my regret to the noble Lord that, I did not understand from the form in which he put the Questions on the Paper that he was likely to travel into such large and important questions as the effect upon the rates of London of the fares charged in the trams and in motor omnibuses. I hope he will forgive me if I confine myself to answering the five Questions which he has on the Paper and which deal with various matters of fact, and do not enter into a discussion of the matters of opinion with which so much of his speech dealt.
The first Question deals with the number of passengers carried on the London County Council tramways during the year which ended On March 31, 1912. The Secretary of State is informed that the number so carried was 533,410,200, and that 11·586 per cent. of the total, amounting to 61,806,125, were carried at workmen's fares, and this includes return journeys made with workmen's tickets. The Secretary of State has no information as to the fares charged on motor omnibuses, and, as the noble Lord is well aware, he has no authority to interfere with or regulate them in any way. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope to the noble Lord that His Majesty's Government are likely to introduce legislation dealing with this subject. It certainly is not in contemplation at present, and I do not suppose the noble Lord is surprised at that considering the present state of affairs.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: No one, I am sure, will be surprised that the Government deprecate an attempt to press for further legislation at the present time, but I think we ought not to part with the question without assuring His Majesty's Government that this subject is becoming more serious and important every day; and I am afraid that they will find that if they study the interests of the metropolis from a number of points of view they will have to consider the present position in which motor omnibuses stand. To take one point. The streets of London have been laid with the intention of carrying a traffic not so rapid

175
and not so heavy as is provided by motor omnibuses. The consequence, I was informed by a member of one of the metropolitan borough councils last night, is that the extra expenditure during a single year for the upkeep of the roads of his borough had come to somewhere between £8,000 and £10,000, and the engineers state that this does not represent anything like what must be spent, because to put the roads right for this traffic they must be pulled up and the depth of asphalt underneath the road, which is now, I think, nine inches, must be doubled. I think it is obvious that with this mode of traffic increasing every day, however valuable it is, His Majesty's Government must sooner or later recognise that a new science of locomotion has arisen and that in some way or another the local authorities must have made good to them the very great loss they are at present incurring in the interests of one portion of the traffic of London only.
The matter of workmen's fares is quite a different subject. It is true that motor-'buses are the only means of locomotion exempt from that very heavy tax. But if my noble friend had received from the noble Earl opposite an answer which would have been more pleasant to his point of view, he would have been damaging the London County Council tramways, because it is obvious that if a large system of workmen's fares were to be started on the motor omnibuses it would to some extent take away from the enormous number of people who at present travel on the tramways, and
176
as all arrangements have been made by the tramways to provide for the public in this direction they would be the losers to that extent. But whether you look at it from the point of view of the immunity of omnibuses from restrictions placed upon others; their immunity from rates, which is not the case with railroads and tramways; or the damage that they do, which is not the case either with railroads or tramways, I think your Lordships will admit that some clear case is made out for the interposition of the Government, which might take place with very little difficulty by the establishment of a Traffic Board as foreshadowed by the Prime Minister.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I should like to point out to the noble Viscount who has just sat down that there are many streets in London which have not got trams and where workmen's fares are required at the present time, notably the Fulham-road and the road from Hammersmith via Oxford-street, and I could mention others where the institution of workmen's fares on motor omnibuses would not in the least interfere with the trams. I agree with the noble Viscount that there must be appointed sooner or later a Traffic Board which shall decide where the 'buses shall go and where trains shall go, and thus avoid not only the cut-throat competition of these two modes of communication but also prevent a state of things which is at present a danger to the public.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.