Lords Sitting of 30 July 1912

KEIGHLEY CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-Morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

HOWARD ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with an Amendment.
NORTH KILLINGHOLM (ADMIRALTY PIER) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
(UNOPPOSED ORDERS.)
Reported, without amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
(Caerphilly Order.)
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
NATIONAL ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: A further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (FINANCE) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
RHYMNEY VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
ERICHT WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

DUNBAR WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISE- MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order.)
Clause 1:
Right of Trustees Holding Leasehold Interest in Place of Worship to Acquire Freehold.
1.—(1) Where premises held under a lease to which this Act applies are held upon trust to be used for the purposes of a place of worship, whether in conjunction with other purposes or not, and the premises are being used in accordance with the terms of the trust, the trustees, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary (not being an agreement against the enlargement of the leasehold interest into a freehold contained in a lease granted or made before the passing of this Act), shall have the right as incident to their leasehold interest to enlarge that interest into a fee simple, and for that purpose to acquire the freehold and all intermediate reversions:
Provided that—

(a) if the premises exceed two acres in extent the trustees shall not be entitled to exercise the right in respect of more than two acres thereof; and

(b) this Act shall not apply where the premises are used or are proposed to be used for the purposes of a place of worship in contravention of any covenant contained in the lease under which the premises are held or in any lease superior thereto, or where, the trusts upon which the premises are held include the use of the premises (otherwise than by a lessee or assignee from the trustees) for the purposes of any trade or business or for any purposes of a political character.

(2) The leases to which this Act applies are leases (including underleases and agreements for leases or underleases), whether granted or made before or after the passing of this Act, for lives or a life or for a term of years where the term as originally created was a term of not less than twenty-one years, whether determinable on a life or lives or not.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I propose, in paragraph (b) of Clause 1, to strike out the words "or where the trusts upon which the premises are held include the use of the premises (otherwise than by a lessee or assignee from the trustees) for the purposes of any trade or business or for any purposes of a political character." These words were not originally in the Bill but were inserted by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, to meet a complaint made by my noble friend Lord Newton. Personally I did not quite agree to the words. But since then the noble Earl has proposed in Clause 4 to meet the grievance in a way which seems to me on the whole satisfactory. In those circumstances the words which I propose to strike out have nothing to do with the purpose of the Bill, and by remaining in the clause they seem to me rather to create confusion than otherwise. For that reason I propose to omit them.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24, leave out front ("thereto") to the end of the subsection.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): I quite agree with the course suggested by the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: I move to insert the new paragraph standing in my name on the Paper. The noble Earl will recollect that when the Bill was in Committee I moved an Amendment, on behalf of the Port of London Authority, with the object of exempting that authority and other public bodies from the operation of the Bill, and though the noble Earl agreed that I had made out a good ease on behalf of the Port Authority he considered the scope of my Amendment too wide. I understand that as the paragraph is now worded the noble Earl's objection is removed. As I explained in Committee, the Port Authority have a site on their property which has been let by them at a purely nominal rent as a place of worship in the expectation that it would revert to them when it was required for the development of the property. It would be obviously unfair that those to whom the site is let should have the right of acquiring it on the favourable terms provided in this Bill, and that the Port of London

759
Authority should be left at some future date when it was necessary to develop the property to reacquire the land on the terms of the Lands Clauses Act. I therefore hope your Lordships will agree to the insertion of this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 29, after paragraph (b) insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) This Act shall not apply where the premises form part of land which has been acquired by or is vested in the owners thereof for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal or navigation under any Act of Parliament Provisional Order or Order having the force of an Act, of Parliament and the freehold reversion in the premises is held or retained by such owners for those purposes."—(Lord Ritchie o f Dundee.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for having altered the Amendment, and in its present shape I am prepared to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I propose, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause, "It is hereby declared that the acquisition of an estate in fee simple under this Act is not an occasion for the assessment or charge of Increment Value Duty and that Reversion Duty is not assessable or chargeable on any such acquisition." The latter part of this Amendment was proposed in other words in Committee by Lord Clinton, who is not able to be in his place to-day, and I have undertaken to put it forward on his behalf, with the addition that I have extended it to Increment Value Duty as well. The reason is very simple. It is quite possible, if the site of a chapel let on lease is enfranchised, that the lease may be said to be terminated, and then under the new terms the lessor would be liable for Reversion Duty. It has also occurred to me that, supposing it were taken to be a sale, in the same way be might be liable to Increment Duty under the sale clause. I know it has been said that under Section 37 of the Finance Act, 1910, Reversion Duty would not be chargeable because a body of trustees holding for religious purposes would be held to be a governing body constituted for charitable purposes while the land was occupied by such a body for the purposes of that body. It is a legal point and I am not going to undertake to say that it is not so, but it is not very clear, and for
760
the purpose of showing that Reversion Duty is not to apply in this case it would be as well to insert this declaratory Amendment. In any case Section 37 of the Finance Act of 1910 does not apply to Increment Duty. Therefore I think it would be advisable to insert the words which I propose in order to show that it was not intended that this Bill should operate with regard to these transactions. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said the other day that the Government did not intend to claim Reversion Duty in these cases. I have no doubt that may be so. But the question is, What is done in these cases? Lately the Government have been making very extravagant claims for Reversion Duty and Increment Duty, and only on Saturday last they made a claim for Increment Duty, the result of which was that not only were they declared to be wrong, but they had to pay the costs. It seems to me very hard that an individual in the cases under this Bill should be called upon even to defend his rights in the matter and fight any attempt to impose a charge of this sort. If your Lordships consent to insert the clause which I now move, such an attempt would, of course, be absolutely impossible.
Amendment moved—
Insert, after Clause 3, the following new clause:
"Enfranchisement in relation to Land Value Duties.
".It is hereby declared that the acquisition of an estate in fee simple under this Act is not an occasion for the assessment or charge of increment Value Duty and that Reversion Duty is not assessable or chargeable on any such acquisition."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am sorry I do not see my way to accept this Amendment. The proposed new clause divides itself into two parts—one part deals with Increment Value Duty and the other with Reversion Duty. The question of Reversion Duty was referred to during the Committee stage by Lord Clinton. I told him then that we were quite convinced that under Section 37 of the Finance Act, 1910, the lessor was exempt from paying Reversion Duty under this Bill, and since that time I am glad to think that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord that that is so. Then comes the question of Increment Duty, which is on a very different footing. There I do not believe the land would be exempt, and His Majesty's Government do not quite see why it should be. It would be their intention that in such circumstances the land should pay.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It would be the lessor who would pay, would it not?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It would be the vendor, that is to say the owner, who would have to pay the Increment Duty. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government that the vendor should not pay. If there is an increase in the value of the land then Increment Duty becomes payable. Why not? If the land has gone up so immensely in value, then, under the whole principles under which the new taxation upon land as introduced in the Budget was approved of in another place, it is only right and proper that Increment Duty should be paid. In any ease, I suggest to your Lordships that this Amendment is one of those which trench upon debatable ground in so far as the privilege of the other House is concerned, and for that reason also I hope your Lordships will not agree to this Amendment. It is clear that the vendor would have to pay and under the Finance Act he ought to pay.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: When the noble Earl says that the vendor ought to pay I do not follow him, because what advantage will the vendor have got? The site will have been enfranchised and the per3ons who will have benefited will be the trustees of the chapel. On the other hand the vendor, if Increment Duty is payable, will, as I understand, have to pay it. Why should he have to pay it? He gets nothing.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am anxious that there should be no misunderstanding as to this somewhat technical point. May I put to the noble Earl how I understand it? Let us take the case of a chapel leased to trustees at the nominal rent, say, of a shilling a year. The site is enfranchised under this Bill. Thereupon, as I understand it, no question arises with regard to Reversion Duty. That I understand the noble Earl is quite satisfied upon, and he is able to give the House an explicit assurance on the point. Then we come to Increment Duty. Am I right in thinking that what would happen in that case would be that the owner who had leased the site, in the case supposed, for a shilling a year would find himself, after enfranchisement, able to turn it to the best advantage and to obtain an increase of income in respect of it? If that is so, I think there is something to be said for the view of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Increment Duty only becomes payable upon the difference when the land is more valuable. What the vendor would have to pay upon, therefore, would be the increase in the amount of money he got. If the vendor does not get the money he cannot pay Increment Duty.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4:
Power to Require Trustees to Sell in Certain Cases.
4.—(1) If any person who appears to the Judge of the County Court to be interested proves to the satisfaction of the Judge that any premises the estate in fee simple in which has been acquired by the trustees under this Act, or any part thereof, are let or are habitually used for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith, the Judge shall, unless it appears to him that such use was due to inadvertence and will be discontinued, order that the premises, or such part thereof, be sold.
(2) For the purposes of this section premises shall not be deemed to be habitually used for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith by reason only of their being used for such other purpose not more than twice in any year.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I move to omit from subsection (1) the words "any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith" and to insert "purposes of any trade or business or for any purposes of a political character." This Amendment will not come as any surprise to those of your Lordships who followed the discussion on this clause in Committee. I quite admit that the position is a difficult one. We none of us wish them chapels in future to be used for political purposes or for trade purposes. We are quite agreed upon that. In the clause as it stands at present your Lordships will see that the building is forbidden to be used for "any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith." A number of other objects readily occur to one's mind for which it is very desirable that these chapels should be used if the trustees so desire. Take, for instance, the campaign against tuberculosis, an instance to which I referred on the last occasion. Take, again, meetings of friendly societies; it is desirable that friendly societies should not meet in public-houses. But the words of the Bill as they stand at present would prevent the use of these chapels either for

763
friendly society purposes, or for such purposes as the campaign against tuberculosis. I might mention other purposes for which these buildings might be used such as parish council meetings, health and housing crusades, agricultural and horticultural lectures, and so on; but under the clause as it stands any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith is forbidden. It is desirable that we should rid our minds of what, perhaps, is in the minds of some noble Lords. I refer to the fact that those who use these chapels for religious purposes on Sundays do not attach quite the same sacred character to them as we in the Church of England do to our churches. The idea of using our churches for other purposes than as places of worship is repugnant to us, but that is not so in the ease of the chapels which will be enfranchised under this Bill. In these circumstances I venture to hope that your Lordships will agree to this Amendment, which allows full latitude to the trustees and only prevents the buildings being used for purposes of trade and political meetings.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, leave out from ("for") to ("the") in line 30, and insert ("the purposes of any trade or business or for any purposes of a political character").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD NEWTON: In spite of what the noble Earl has said, I cannot help expressing the hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. After all, this Bill is brought in for a particular purpose—namely, because it is supposed to be a good thing to enfranchise certain religious edifices—and I cannot see why the scope of the Bill should be enlarged. The words in the Bill "place of worship or purposes connected therewith" ought to be wide enough for anybody. I take it that those words would cover, for instance, an institution like a gymnasium or anything of that sort. What the noble Earl is proposing, in effect, is that enfranchisement should be compulsory provided no trade whatever is carried on in the building and it is not used for political purposes. I submit that that is going beyond the spirit of the Bill, and that the words in the clause are amply sufficient to cover the purposes indicated. For that reason, if I succeed in finding a teller, I shall certainly vote against the noble Earl's Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I must say, having spoken the other day with regard to this Amendment, that I think the words which the noble Earl inserted in Committee are amply sufficient and very good words indeed. He provides that the premises are to be sold at the discretion of a Judge if they are "let or habitually used for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith." That is the whole extent of the Bill as stated in Clause 1. It is quite true that by inserting the words which the noble Earl has moved to-day these premises may be used for tuberculosis meetings and so on, but they might also be used for the purposes of a club or anything of that kind. I greatly prefer the words at present in the Bill.
THE EARL OF MEATH: Would the words as they stand in the clause prevent Happy Evening Associations meeting in chapels, because we know that they have sometimes a tendency to be very political?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I expressed the other evening, and I still retain, a preference for the very much simpler formula which is now in the clause and which owes its existence to the Motion of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. After all, this is a Bill intended to facilitate the enfranchisement of places of worship. That is admirably expressed in the clause as it now stands. I see the point which Lord Beauchamp has in his mind, but what I am afraid is that if we extend the scope of the clause in this manner we shall find that we are passing a measure, not for the purpose of enfranchising places of worship, but for the purpose of enabling people to enfranchise premises which are partly used as places of worship and partly for wholly different purposes. My noble friend cited one of them a moment ago. I venture to think that the safer course is to adhere to the clause as it is in the Bill at present.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I shall not, of course, put the House to the trouble of a Division, but I am afraid I must warn noble Lords opposite, on behalf of my friends in another place, that the Bill in its present shape is not likely to be acceptable to them, and that it is not unlikely that the Bill will be returned to this House with the wording changed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Is the noble Earl satisfied that subsection (2) of Clause 4 is essential to the purpose of the Bill? The first subsection says that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Judge that the premises are "let or habitually used for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith" there is power to require the trustees to sell. Cannot we safely leave it to the Judge to decide whether the premises are habitually so used or not? Subsection (2) attempts to define what is "habitual use." Personally I would very much prefer to trust to the common-sense of the Court than to any definition.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This is one of those legal matters on which I can only speak with difficulty. I am advised that the phrase "habitually used" is one which is difficult for Judges to interpret, and it was thought that it might be of some assistance to them if we defined what the phrase really means. I have no great feeling one way or the other, but acting under the advice which has been given to me I am inclined to ask that the subsection should be allowed to stand, at any rate for the present.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 134.)

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Saye and Sele.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Inspection of Traps.
9. Any person who sets, or causes or procures to be set, any spring trap, or any snare, for the purpose of catching any hare or rabbit, or which is so placed as to be likely to catch any hare or rabbit, shall inspect, or cause some competent person to inspect, the trap or snare at least once every day between sunrise and sunset, and, if any person shall fail to comply with the provisions of this section, he shall be liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of this Bill what the object is of the particular words in this clause which oblige the individual responsible for the setting of a trap to have it inspected "between sunrise and sunset." I am not an advocate for spring traps. I would like to see them abolished altogether if it were possible, but I know it is not possible. I cordially agree that they ought to be inspected regularly, and where they are used in any place with which I have to deal they are inspected regularly. But why is it to be done "between sunrise and sunset"? So far as Scotland is concerned, I believe that to be an idiotic provision. In Scotland the winter days are very short. The sun does not rise till eight o'clock in the morning, and it sets between three and four o'clock in the afternoon. The regular practice on well-ordered estates where traps are set for rabbits is to inspect them twice in the twenty-four hours—between sunset and sunrise. The humane thing is to inspect traps at night and early in the morning before sunrise. But what you are going to do by this Bill is to oblige the unfortunate animal which is caught in the trap to stay there for a longer period alive than it would otherwise do. Of all the idiotic provisions I have ever seen, I think this is one of the worst.
LORD SAYE AND SELE: In the English Act of last year the wording was that the traps should be inspected "at reasonable intervals of time and at least once every day between sunrise and sunset." The words "at reasonable intervals of time" were taken out of this Bill by the Committee for Scottish Bills in another place. So far as I know they gave no reason for striking those words out.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think the noble Lord ought to be able to give a reason. He is responsible for the Bill here. It was read a second time only yesterday, and I was surprised to see it down for Committee to-day. I came to the House intending to give notice to move in Committee to omit the words "between sunrise and sunset," but I was unable to give notice because the Committee stage was down for to-day. If the noble Lord will now accept an Amendment to leave out these words I will move it. Certainly if the provision remains as it stands you will do serious injury to the ordinary practice. The traps for which

767
my servants are responsible are inspected twice a day, but on both occasions, as I have said, between sunset and sunrise. If this Bill passes as it stands that practice will have to be stopped, because it will not be in accordance with the law. Yet I am doing at the present moment a much more humane thing in the interests of the unfortunate animals which are caught in these traps than would be the case if this Bill passed in its present form. To put the matter in order, I move to omit the words "between sunrise and sunset."
Amendment moved—
Clause 9, page 6, line 9, omit ("between sunrise and sunset")—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD SAYE AND SELE: I accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 135.)

PUBLIC OFFICES (SITES) BILL.
The KING'S consent signified: Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN rose to ask whether Mr. Thomas Wilson, lately appointed a Sub-Commissioner by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, was a Liberal election agent for Inverness-shire up to his previous appointment as factor and manager for the Congested Districts Board; and also, why he has been treated exceptionally in regard to salary, which commences at £700 per annum, the maximum salary of the scale.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, a Return was recently laid on the Table which gives the appointments made by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland since they entered upon their office on April 1 last, and I wish to call your Lordships' attention to the appointment of Mr. Thomas Wilson as a Sub-Commissioner for Small Holdings. The salary of Sub-Commissioners is on a scale from £550 to £700 per annum, but Mr. Wilson is entered on the scale with the maximum salary of £700. I would remind your
768
Lordships that the duties which Sub-Commissioners have to discharge are very delicate duties indeed. The Sub-Commissioners have the right of putting forward schemes for taking land compulsorily, for proposing what land is to be taken, and so on, and to submit those schemes to the Commissioners. These Sub-Commissioners are appointed by the Board of Agriculture, and will, I presume, have to report to them and advise them on all dealings with land, and they will have to negotiate with owners and occupiers of land and have other delicate duties of that kind to perform.
What are the qualifications of Mr. Wilson for a post of this sort? I believe I am right in saying that within a short period he was an active political agent in Inverness-shire. Indeed, at the last General Election, if my memory serves me rightly, he travelled about Scotland making speeches on the land question and on other questions of that kind. He is well known and has been so for years as a person who takes a very strong part on the Liberal, or I should say the Radical, side of the question. If your Lordships look at the last column of the Return you will see that Mr. Wilson is represented as having been formerly employed in an established capacity as factor and manager under the Congested Districts Board at a salary of £300 a year. That appointment must have been of very short duration. The dates are not given, but I know it must have been for a very short time. When the Congested Districts Board left office and the new Board of Agriculture came in their place Mr. Wilson was appointed as an established officer and entered upon the appointment at £700 a year, the maximum salary of the scale. Why he has thus been treated exceptionally I know not. If your Lordships will look at the Return you will see that the other Sub-Commissioner, a Mr. Angus Macintosh, is employed on the same scale of salary and he starts at £550. What is the reason for the difference made between these two men? Mr. Angus Macintosh was senior to Mr. Wilson in established employment under the Board. It seems to me that these are facts which require explanation, and therefore I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
LORD WILLINGDON: My Lords, I do not know anything personally about

769
the individual to whom the noble Earl makes reference, but I propose to answer the two specific points that he raises in his Question. The noble Earl asks, first of all, whether Mr. Thomas Wilson was a Liberal election agent for Inverness-shire up to his previous appointment as factor and manager for the Congested Districts Board. That is perfectly true. Up to his appointment in that capacity he was a Liberal agent and I am given to understand a very efficient and able Liberal agent, but I ant sure the noble Earl will not suggest that the fact of his having been a political agent, whether Liberal or Conservative, would militate against his being efficient in any other service if he was an able and industrious man.
In the second part of his Question the noble Earl asks why Mr. Wilson has been treated exceptionally in regard to salary. The reason I am given to understand is this. It is obvious that when a Department is in its inception it is important to get the best men at the heads of the various parts of the Department. It was considered very desirable to get Mr. Thomas Wilson to be the head of this particular branch of his Department because he had an intimate knowledge of the particular locality for which he was appointed. He represented that he was already making an income of between £700 and £800 a year and that he could not give this up for a reduced salary, and it was considered so advisable to appoint him—this is what I am given to understand—and he was considered such an efficient man that he was appointed at the maximum salary. Added to this he is a man of fifty-six years of age, and, of course, that made a considerable difference as he would not have many years to run under the particular Department. Those, I am given to understand, are the reasons for the appointment of. Mr. Wilson. He is a most efficient and able man, and will, I think, perform his duties thoroughly satisfactorily.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not suppose it is fair for me to cross-examine the noble Lord about Mr. Wilson. It was after the time when I was responsible for matters at the Scottish Office that Mr. Wilson was appointed factor and manager for the Congested Districts Board; at that time he had not even been made Liberal agent for Inverness-shire. But my knowledge of Mr. Wilson's antecedents
770
goes back a number of years, and while he may have been efficient as factor and manager for the Congested Districts Board I should he rather surprised to find that he had in any way distinguished himself for judicial administration, which I understand is part of the work of a Sub-Commissioner. As factor and manager for the Congested Districts Board he was probably under the control of people who would bring to bear a judicial mind upon the transactions, but if the noble Lord cares to inquire as to what Mr. Wilson's antecedents were in earlier years he will hardly think that he is likely to be a very judicial person when questions arise between landlord and tenant.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think we are excusable if we keep a somewhat vigilant eye upon appointments of this kind. The question is not really a small one. It is on record that the present Administration since they came into power had, up to July of last year, made no fewer than 4,200 appointments in the Public Service—appointments necessitated by the legislation which has taken place since 1906. It follows that the average pace at which these appointments are made is something in the neighbourhood of 1,000 a year. Therefore the matter is, as I said just now, not one of small importance. It is also on record—all these things are disclosed in a Parliamentary Return—that two-thirds of these appointments have been filled without any examination.
Two results must inevitably follow from this practice. I do not blame His Majesty's Government so much with regard to them, because I believe they are inevitable results. The first result is that you are bound to appoint a great number of persons of very mediocre attainments, and for this excellent reason—first, that the number of first-rate men available is not sufficient, and, in the second place, that the emoluments which you offer are not sufficient to attract first-rate men to the Service. The second result which I believe to be inevitable is that in selecting these persons the Government of the day turn principally to their own friends. I do not make any charge that persons unfit are deliberately selected for these appointments, but it is obvious that the heads of Departments come more into contact with people of their own way of thinking, and therefore the tendency does arise to appoint partisans of your own, and, in making these selec-

771
tions, to reward political services by means of these appointments. The way in which it is usually put is that the Government desire to put into these places persons who are sympathetic with the legislation to which effect has to be given.
Now look at the case of this Mr. Wilson, What do we know about him? He has been a Radical political agent, and the noble Lord who replied for the Scottish Office told us that in that capacity he was efficient and able. I dare say he was and that not a word is to be said against his efficiency or his ability in that post; but, as Lord Balfour truly said a moment ago, you do not look to that kind of man, however efficient and able he is, for those judicial qualities which are indispensable in the case of an appointment of this kind. We all know that under the Act of fist year these Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners have to decide most difficult questions involving extensive private rights, and it is most important that their antecedents should be of a kind which would inspire the parties who are affected by their decisions with confidence in the judicial qualities of the officials themselves. I can scarcely believe that it was impossible to find for this appointment no one except a gentleman with such a tempestuous record as that which Mr. Wilson appears to enjoy. I am glad my noble friend has drawn attention to this matter, and I do earnestly trust that this short conversation may have the effect of inducing His Majesty's Government to press upon the Departments subordinate to them the necessity of exercising the greatest possible care in filling up these appointments, which, though perhaps in a somewhat minor degree, nevertheless involve very important quasi-judicial duties.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I desire, with your Lordships' permission, to say one or two words with regard to the answer which was given to me by the noble Lord who represents the Scottish Office. That answer seemed to me to make it more clear than ever that Mr. Wilson ought not to have been appointed to the office of Sub-Commissioner. The noble Lord said that Mr. Wilson has an intimate knowledge of this district. Yes, so he has; and so have the district and the Scottish Office a very intimate knowledge of Mr. Wilson. Lord Balfour, even so far back as the time when he (Lord Balfour) was Secretary for Scotland, knows
772
Mr. Wilson, and knows that his qualities are not those of a Sub-Commissioner. The Act says that all these appointments are to be made with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland. I presume that approval was given in this instance. Yet if the Secretary for Scotland had only chosen to make inquiries in his own Department I am quite convinced that he would have been told that Mr. Wilson was not a fit person to place in this position. One reason given for starting Mr. Wilson at the maximum salary of £700 is that he is fifty-six years of age and is not likely to go on for very long or reach the maximum of his pension. Are these appointments to be filled up in order to enable people to reach the maximum of their pension, and is the salary to be allotted in regard to age rather than the efficiency of the person appointed? It seems to me that the fact that Mr. Wilson is not likely to go on long was an additional reason for not appointing him, and certainly not one for giving him a higher salary.
Last year the then Secretary for Scotland, Lord Pentland, assured your Lordships over and over again in this House that one reason why we should have no hesitation in entrusting these great powers to the bodies created under the Scottish Small Holdings Act was that the appointments would be made with the greatest impartiality and the greatest care. This, however, is the first appointment the Board of Agriculture made on entering upon its duties! Any one who knows much about Scotland and the history of Scotland during the last two or three years will have heard of Mr. Wilson by name, and I venture to say the Board has commenced its duties by making a very bad and unfit appointment. Do your Lordships imagine that owners and occupiers of land in Inverness-shire and all that part of the country, whose land, I suppose, Mr. Wilson will inspect and report upon to the Board, will have any confidence in the impartiality and in the judicial qualities of a man who up till lately was a political agent in the county? It stands to reason that this appointment was not a fit appointment; and I can only say that if the actions of the Board are looked upon in the immediate future with a considerable amount of suspicion, it will arise from their own fault and from their own fault alone.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.