Sitting of 11 July 1901

The Lord Seaton took the Oath.
TRIAL OF EARL RUSSELL.
The King's Answer to the Address of Friday last reported by the Lord Steward (E. Pembroke and Montgomery) as follows, namely: I have received your Address praying that I will order that a sufficient Police Force be in attendance to keep clear the approaches leading to your House during the trial of John Stanley Earl Russell on an indictment for felony; and I will issue directions accordingly.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  FAVERSHAM WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered and agreed to.
  TORRINGTON AND OKEHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, without amendment.
  WALLASEY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 27th and 28th of June last discharged; and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
  LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS (NEW WORKS) BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn. The Orders made on the 21st and 25th of June discharged; and Bill committed.
  BIGGLESWADE WATER BOARD BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 21st day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday, the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.
  ALDERSHOT GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Read 3a, with Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
  Standing Order No. 93 considered (according to Order), and dispensed with, with respect to a petition of the Council of the Metropolitan Borough of St. Marylebone; leave given to present the said petition.
  DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons, read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 159.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 160.)
  BELFAST AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
AYR COUNTY BUILDINGS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
    BRISTOL CORPORATION CEMETERY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    KING'S NORTON AND NORTHFIELD URBAN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LLANDRINDOD WELLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
  MANSFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  HUMBER COMMERCIAL RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  The order made on the 25th June last, appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill discharged.
CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER BILL.
  GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.

    WEST CUMBERLAND ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
    SOUTHAMPTON AND WINCHESTER GREAT WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore) and the Lord Seaton be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Bradford and the Earl Beauchamp; read, and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES.
  Annual: No. 326, Barbados; Report for 1900.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2,654, Portugal (Quilimane).
  No. 2,655, China (Wenchow).

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Report on the manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Portland, K.G., preserved at Welbeck Abbey (Vols. VI. and VII.), and the manuscripts of Berwick-upon-Tweed and Burford Corporations, the counties of Wilts and Worcester, and of the Deans and Chapters of Chichester and Salisbury.
  DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
  Forty-third Report of the Board of Superintendence; with appendices, for the year 1900–1.

  LUNACY.
  Appendices to the Fifty-fifth Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ST. LUCIA (PRISON RULES).
  Amendment of Rule No. 247, relating to the remission of sentences. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of; of shop assistants in Belfast (2); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  First Report made; to be printed; and to be considered on Tuesday next. (No. 158.)

  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL.
  Order for the day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I am afraid that in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I must ask for the kind indulgence of the House while I make a statement. When the Bill was read a second time I had no idea that there would be any serious opposition to it in this House. Since then, however, the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, has given notice to move its rejection on Third Reading, and, of course, opposition coming from such a quarter is of the most formidable description. The noble Earl has informed me that his opposition to the measure is not an out-and-out opposition, and that it would be advisable for me, in moving the Third Reading, to state to the House, not only the purport of the Bill, but the reasons which induced me to bring it forward. I do so under a very deep feeling of responsibility, because this is a Bill in which three and a half millions of the working classes of this country who belong to friendly societies are keenly
  6
  interested, and I should regret exceedingly if, by any omission or bad advocacy on my part, I imperilled the Bill in your Lordships' House. The object of the Bill is a very simple one. It is to encourage thrift, and, by encouraging thrift, in the long run to reduce the poor rate. Undoubtedly, if this Bill should pass into law, the immediate effect would possibly be to make a very small increase in the amount required for outdoor relief; but if the Bill should have the effect that we hope it will have—the effect of giving the working classes further inducement to become members of benefit societies—then we say that in the long run outdoor relief will decrease and the poor rate be diminished. The Bill is so very short that, as regards the purport of it, I do not know that I can do better than read it to your Lordships. The two clauses of the Bill are these:—
  "(1) The discretion given by Section 1 of the Outdoor Relief Friendly Societies Act, 1894, to the boards of guardians to take or not to take into consideration the amount received by a member of a friendly society as sick pay when granting outdoor relief shall be limited as hereinafter provided.
  "(2) In granting outdoor relief to a member of any friendly society the board of guardians shall not take into consideration any sum up to five shillings a week received from such friendly society as sick pay."
  This Bill has been bitterly opposed by the Charity Organisation Society on two grounds—firstly, that it is a revolutionary measure and entirely upsets the whole theory of the Act of Elizabeth, which declares that a man's necessities, and not his merits, shall be the sole criterion in granting outdoor relief; secondly, that it is exceedingly objectionable inasmuch as it singles out members of friendly societies for special treatment. Your Lordships will see from the Bill that we do not propose to compel guardians to do anything that it is not lawful for them to do at the present time; and if it is true that it is wrong to in any respect modify or set aside the statute of Elizabeth, that wrong was committed, not by this Bill, but by the Act of 1894. And if it is wrong to discriminate between thrift in friendly societies and other kinds of thrift, that wrong, again, was perpetrated under the Act of 1894. I think, then, in these circumstances, it would be advisable for me to say one word as to

  7
  the reception of the Act of 1894 in the House of Commons. It was passed without a single dissentient voice. On the Second Reading, outside the official members of the Government, thirteen Members, in addition to the Member in charge of the Bill, spoke upon it, and every one of them was most enthusiastic in its favour. In 1894 it was not considered, nor is it now in any respect, a party question. In 1894 such diverse members, politically speaking, as the Radical tenant-farmer representative, Mr. Lambert, and the present Conservative Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone, were equally enthusiastic in favour of the Bill; and one of the speakers, a Conservative Member—Sir James Rankin, I think—hit the nail on the head with regard to the Bill when he said that the number of people in receipt of outdoor relief throughout the country had considerably decreased, and that the greatest factor in that decrease had been the action of the friendly society. No doubt this Bill goes further than the Act of 1894, but in what respect does it go further? The Act of 1894 was permissive, and, in my opinion, rightly permissive. I think the Legislature would have done wrong in admitting this, to some extent, new principle, and compelling guardians to act upon it without seeing how it would work. But we are now in the year 1901. We have had seven years experience of this measure, and is it not the case that all the dismal prognostications of the Charity Organisation Society have proved false? Every year shows that boards of guardians are more and more desirous of having this Bill made compulsory, and in the other House there was only one dissentient to the compulsory nature of the measure. The Bill is only to a certain extent compulsory; it leaves considerable discretion to boards of guardians. I do not think it is a right state of things that, after seven years experience of this permissive Act, Parliament should do nothing whatever to make uniform the principle by which boards of guardians are to be guided in this matter. I do not know what case the noble Earl will make against the Bill, but I will venture to say—and it is a very significant fact—that the boards of guardians throughout the country are in favour of it. We have
  8
  plenty of negative evidence that they are in favour of the measure. Boards of guardians are not backward in pressing their views on the Legislature when they are opposed to a Bill, but we have heard no objections urged by them to this measure, and we have this positive piece of evidence in its favour. At the annual conference of associations of poor-law unions, at which over 200 unions were represented, the officials drafted a resolution to the effect that this Bill ought not to be supported, but the delegates took the matter into their own hands, and threw over the officials' resolution in favour of another, which was carried without a division, endorsing the principle of the Bill and expressing the hope that it might become law. I hope your Lordships will consider that this Bill, which is supported enthusiastically by 3,500,000 working men, which passed, almost without opposition, through the House of Commons, which is approved of by the great majority of boards of guardians whose discretion is sought to be limited, and which is supported—and very enthusiastically supported—by the Local Government Board, is one which, if it is to be thrown out in your Lordships' House, ought not to be thrown out except on very good reasons shown. I beg to move the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Monkswell).
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I very much regret that I feel it my duty to ask your Lordships not to give a Third Reading to this Bill, because I am sorry to be in any degree in even apparent opposition to the two great friendly societies whose agents have issued a circular to your Lordships in favour of the Bill. Those societies have done an infinite amount of good in the country, and I think I shall show before I sit down that it is not in the real interests of those societies that the Bill should become law. I quite agree with the noble Lord who introduced it that this is in no sense a party question. I communicated with the President of the Local Government Board upon it, and he assured me that although he supported the Bill it was not his desire to exercise

  9
  any pressure in this House in respect to its passing. It was with the greatest difficulty that I could find any record of this Bill in the proceedings of the other House. It was passed without much notice and I was not even aware that there was such a Bill till I heard the speech of my noble friend the Earl of Morley the other evening, in which he called attention to it and gave his reasons against it. The Second Reading stage in your Lordships' House came on before an important debate on the Army and I doubt whether noble Lords paid any attention to it at the time. My reasons for opposing the Bill are two. In the first place, in my opinion it introduces a very important change in the principle of the administration of the poor law which ought not to be brought forward by a private Member, but which should only be undertaken after full information has been conveyed to Parliament and on the responsibility of a Minister of the Crown. In the second place, no reasons whatever have been adduced—certainly none have been stated by the noble Lord who moved the Third Reading of the Bill—to show that boards of guardians have not properly exercised the discretion given to them by the Act of 1894. The noble Lord has given the history of that Act. It had become the practice, although it was contrary to the law, for boards of guardians to make some addition in outdoor relief to the sick pay received from a friendly society, and the Act of 1894 was passed to make the practice legal. The words of the Act are—
  "Any board of guardians may, if they think fit, grant relief out of the rates to any person……notwithstanding such person shall be in receipt of any sum as a member of a friendly society, and in estimating the amount of relief it shall be at the discretion of the board of guardians whether they will or will not take into consideration the amount which may be received by him from such friendly society."
  We had a discussion in this House in June, 1894, on the Bill, and the Earl of Kimberley, then Leader of the Government, stated his opinion—
  "that the Bill could not be defended on principle, but only because it made legal a practice which largely prevailed. He there fore recommended that discretion should be
  10
  left to boards of guardians, and that the practice should not be allowed to stand on the deliberate negligence of the Local Government Board."
  The noble Marquess the present Prime Minister expressed a similar opinion. The noble Marquess said—
  "In my view, the thing should be done according to the circumstances of each case, and according to the discretion of the board of guardians. There are cases in which it ought to be done and others in which it ought not to be done; and it ought to be quite clear that it is left absolutely to their discretion."
  I think that is common sense. But the Bill now before the House contains only one clause which purports to limit the discretion of boards of guardians, but in fact destroys that discretion. The noble lord who moved the Third Reading says that he wishes to secure uniformity; but I contend that in regard to the relief of the poor you have to deal with each individual case; there should be no such thing as a hard line of uniformity. If this Bill passed boards of guardians will have to do one of two things—they must either refuse relief altogether, or not take into consideration receipts from friendly societies up to 5s. I contend that this introduces an entirely new principle. After seven years experience the noble Lord says we ought to go further. If that seven years experience shows that boards of guardians have properly exercised their powers, where is the reason for making a change?
  The main argument of the noble Lord, and the main argument, I think, which should receive consideration at the hands of your Lordships, is that the Bill is supported by the great friendly societies. No doubt it is true that the Bill is supported by the Parliamentary agents of the Manchester Unity, which is the largest of all the societies, and of the Foresters, which I think is the next largest; but at the same time they say that very few members of friendly societies seek parochial aid, and then chiefly in old age. Therefore if delay takes place in passing this Bill there can be no great hardship done to members of friendly societies. No doubt there are three and a half million members of friendly societies, but a very small number of them could be

  11
  affected by the change in the law proposed in this Bill. I regret the change of attitude which the friendly societies have shown by supporting this Bill. I regret it because it is entirely contrary to the attitude they took when they had the question of old-age pensions before them. When my right hon. friend Mr. Chamberlain first brought forward the question of old-age pensions I had some communications with the principal officials of the Manchester Unity. I thought it quite possible that the great friendly societies might welcome the co-operation of the Government with regard to old-age pensions, and accept some kind of arrangement whereby, if so much was drawn by a member of a friendly society as an old-age pension, an equal sum might be given by the State. I found there was a strong feeling on the part of the friendly societies against any arrangement of the kind. I doubted their wisdom at the time, but I afterwards came to the conclusion that they were right in wishing to maintain the independence of the societies, and justified in apprehending that some kind of Government interference might be introduced into the working of the societies if the proposal was carried out. There is no distinction whatever in principle between State aid through the taxes and aid through the rates. To supplement 5s. a week received from a friendly society from the rates is precisely the same thing in principle as to do so from the taxes. I regret the change of opinion that has taken place amongst the friendly societies, and I have never seen the report of any discussion giving the reasons why the friendly societies support this measure. The Royal Commission of 1874, over which the late Lord Iddesleigh, then Sir Stafford Northcote, presided, and of which Sir Michael Hicks Beach, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, was a member, pointed out the mistake of encouraging a man to make a less contribution to a society than his means allowed, and to count on poor law relief to make up the sum required for his support—
  "The tendency of holding out (said the Commission) such favours to members of friendly societies is to encourage men to insure for less than their real needs with a friendly society, and to count on poor law
  12
  relief to make up the sum required for their support. It cannot be but a mistake to deceive people that they are not receiving relief when, in point of fact, they are, and to hold out inducements to them to join clubs on the promise that they may then become paupers on more favourable terms."
  I entirely agree with the conclusions of the Commission. Moreover, your Lordships must recollect that if this Bill is passed it will be merely a beginning, for it will not be possible to confine the application of the principle to friendly societies. There was a chart laid before Parliament last year by the Principal Registrar of Friendly Societies which showed that the total funds of registered provident societies and of certified and Post Office Savings Banks was then no less than £322,000,000. Of that sum the friendly societies represented only £38,000,000, or about one-eighth. The Post Office Savings Banks had no less than £130,000,000 deposited at that time. Deducting from that sum £30,000,000, which, according to the best calculations I can make, may be said to be subscribed by people in the higher class of life, there are at least £100,000,000 in the Post Office Savings Bank subscribed by the working classes. Is it possible to believe, if the principle of this Bill is passed, and the 5s. which a poor man receives from a friendly society is not to be considered when the question of his relief comes before the guardians, that the other methods of providence can be left out of consideration? I hope that if some delay is allowed to take place before this question is settled we shall have further discussions by the friendly societies, and some explanation of the grounds on which they support this change.
  As regards boards of guardians, although at a meeting of the National Association of Boards of Guardians a resolution may have been passed in favour of this Bill, yet I do not think that association can fee considered as thoroughly representative of boards of guardians throughout the country According to the noble Lord himself, only 200 out of about 700 boards of guardians were represented at the meeting. There is another body—namely, the Poor Law Conference which I believe more fully represents the opinion of boards of guardians

  13
  I have looked at the proceedings of the central conferences for the past three years. The first was presided over by Earl Beauchamp, the second by the Duke of Northumberland, and the third by Captain Griffith-Boscawen. I find that no notice whatever has been taken of this question at any of the central conferences. Neither has there been any resolution passed during those three years on the subject of this Bill at any of the district conferences which frequently meet. Neither has it been proposed at the central conferences as a subject which should be discussed. We may assume, therefore, that boards of guardians generally do not take the view expressed by the noble Lord. The Bill was recently considered at a conference at Northampton, and the opinion of almost everyone present was against it. I have received a letter from the clerk to the Paddington Union protesting in the strongest manner on behalf of the board of guardians against the Bill. He says—
  "The main object of poor law administration for the last sixty-seven years has been that provident habits should be as little as possible discouraged, and to reverse such a policy by means of such a Bill—the ultimate effects of which might be very far-reaching—would appear neither just nor equitable."
  I ascertained the other day that the board of guardians in my own neighbourhood—the Winchester Union—has never heard of the Bill, and, after his attention had been called to it, I received a letter from the clerk stating that he saw the same objections as were stated by the Paddington guardians. I think that if its objects were fully explained to boards of guardians a very large majority of them would be against a measure which proposes to take away the discretion which I believe they have wisely used in these cases.
  The noble Lord described this as a small measure. I do not think anybody who understands the working of friendly societies will agree with him. The great difficulty they have is in respect to their old age pensions. In point of fact, sick pay after seventy becomes a sort of pension, and it seems to me that, if this alteration in the law is passed, there may be introduced an old age pension scheme supported by rates
  14
  instead of by taxes. Of all the commissions and committees that have had to report upon this question, not one of them has recommended such a scheme of old age pensions as the supplementing of only one kind of savings by payments from the poor rate.
  The considerations I have ventured to put before your Lordships seem to me to justify the conclusion that this House would do wisely not to pass the Bill; at any rate, I hope I have put forward reasons which will convince your Lordships that further inquiry is necessary before deciding upon such a very important change in the law. If, after further inquiry, it should bethought by the Government advisable to legislate on these lines, let the Bill be introduced on the responsibility of the Government. Let the opinion be obtained of boards of guardians all over the country, of the Poor Law inspectors, and of a man probably more qualified than any other to give a sound opinion on this matter, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies (Mr. Edward W. Brabrook). I asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he had consulted Mr. Brabrook, and he replied that he had, and that he was not in favour of the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out 'now' and add at the end of the motion 'this day three months.'"—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I think my noble friend who has just spoken has both minimised the attitude of the House of Commons towards this Bill and magnified the importance of it, and the change involved by the adoption of its proposals. My noble friend said he experienced difficulty in finding in the journals of the House of Commons any trace of the discussion on this Bill. The Bill was brought in by a private Member belonging to a small minority in the House, and was put down day after day so as to come on after midnight, when the objection of a single Member would have been sufficient to stop it. Yet the hon. Member in charge of the Bill succeeded in carrying it through all its stages up to the Third Reading under these conditions. The Bill came up for

  15
  Third Reading on a Wednesday afternoon, at a time, again, when it would have been exceedingly easy for an obstinate member to cause the loss of the Bill by talking it out. But what happened? There was a prolonged debate on the Bill, and it was distinctly and directly due to the intervention and influence of the President of the Local Government Board that it was read a third time. It does seem to me, therefore, that it is very fair to urge that the Bill has received overwhelming support from the House of Commons. My noble friend brought forward two reasons for opposing the Bill. He said, first, that it involves a great change in the principle of the administration of the poor law. That is a proposition which I entirely challenge. It has already been shown by my noble friend Lord Monkswell that this Bill involves no change of principle, for it is the same in principle as the Act of 1894. The only thing the Bill does is to make the adoption of the principle sanctioned by the Legislature in 1894 compulsory, and to secure uniformity of action by boards of guardians throughout the length and breadth of the land. It surely is most desirable that you should not have this principle given effect to in one locality, and a totally different principle acted upon in another. The noble Earl said we ought to have shown that the powers given to boards of guardians in 1894 had been improperly used. There is no question of the improper use of those powers. Boards of guardians have used this power in the majority of cases, and I think it is desirable that we should secure uniformity of action. My noble friend argued, throughout his speech, that this was giving old-age pensions by a side-wind, but I would remind him that the Bill refers simply to the question of sick pay. Sick pay, when it is given by friendly societies, is temporary relief. I believe that only in the case of one friendly society—the Hearts of Oak, do they give anything in the shape of a permanent allowance. I believe under certain circumstances the Hearts of Oak give a permanent allowance of 4s. a week; but in the case of the ordinary friendly society a man who applies is granted sick pay for, say, three months, after which time it is renewed at a lower figure. After all,
  16
  I do not see that a man who has been thrifty in other ways is really injured by this Bill. It is true that he does not get the same consideration when it comes to a question of relief from the rates, but he does not lose by it, and is not put in any worse position than at present. I do not think my noble friend has made out anything like a clear case against this Bill, and I hope my noble friend will carry it to a division. If he does, I shall be glad to support him.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I ventured the other day to call attention to the Bill, as it was going into Committee, and I am bound to say, on further consideration, that the doubts I then entertained as to the expediency of the Bill being carried into law have been considerably strengthened. The noble Lord who last spoke and the noble Lord who introduced the Bill both maintain that there is no new principle involved in this Bill. It seems to me that there is distinctly a new principle involved. The change from discretionary to compulsory action seems to me a very large and very important change, and, although the Bill only touches a small portion of the large subject of poor-law administration, still I maintain that it does introduce a new principle, and one of a very far-reaching character. When the Bill of 1894 was read a second time in the House of Commons it was, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook stated, distinctly and emphatically accepted as a discretionary measure. The words of my noble friend, whose absence the House so much regrets—the Earl of Kimberley—and of the Prime Minister on that occasion were of the most emphatic nature that the whole point of the Bill was that it should leave the guardians absolute discretion. The noble Marquess the Prime Minister said—
  "There are cases in which it ought to be done, and there are others in which it ought not to be done, and it ought to be quite clear that it is left absolutely to their discretion."
  I do not think I have omitted any words which qualify the noble Marquess's statement. The Bill at that time, as I understand it, was really a measure to indemnify the guardians, who had been in the habit for many years of not

  17
  considering the pay given by friendly societies in these cases. This was the acknowledged practice, and the Act of 1894, which gave them discretion with regard to this particular practice, condoned what was in the strict letter of the law an illegal exercise of their powers. By this Bill you will be substituting some other test for that of destitution, and either the Bill goes too far or it does not go far enough. If the principle involved in the Bill is accepted, why are you to refuse to give the same consideration to men who have saved money and have put it into savings banks, co-operative societies or building societies—all of them admirable forms of thrift? Though I acknowledge that, if the Bill passes, men who have saved in other directions than in friendly societies will not be put in a worse position; they will, as a matter of fact, be placed in a relatively worse position, for they will not receive advantages which are accorded those who have invested in friendly societies.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I hold that this is one of the gravest subjects that could be brought under the consideration of your Lordships. Indeed, so strongly do I feel upon it that I gave Lord Monkswell notice that I should move the rejection of the Bill on Third Reading, but I was glad to find that my noble friend Lord Northbrook had already undertaken to do so. The state of the law, as laid down by the Poor Law Commissioners in 1832, was this: that in giving outdoor relief boards of guardians were to take into consideration whatever means or income the applicant had, and fix the relief in proportion. The principle of giving discretion to boards of guardians in this matter was introduced in the Act of 1894. But this is a revolutionary Bill, because it makes it compulsory on the guardians to administer outdoor relief in a method directly contrary to the views of the Commissioners of 1832 and 1834. My noble friend Lord Tweedmouth said this was the private Bill of a private Member. That is the worst thing he could have said of it. The names of twelve private Members were on the tack of this Bill in the House of Commons, and I said to a friend of mine in the other House, "Who are these
  18
  twelve Members? Are they genuine philanthropists or vote-hunting humanitarians?" He replied that, with one exception—I will not give the name of that gentleman—they were vote-hunting humanitarians, and that the one exception had his name on the back of almost every bad Bill, and was everything to everybody on all things. I contend that such a change as that proposed in this Bill ought not to be proposed except by the Government after careful inquiry. The danger of relaxing the method of administering outdoor relief is that we may go back to the state of things which existed seventy years ago, when the majority of the working people of England were absolutely demoralised by the way in which the poor law was administered. The following is an extract from the report of the Poor Law Commissioners of 1832—
  "It is our painful duty to report that the fund raised under the 43rd Elizabeth—the original poor law—is applied to purposes opposed to the letter and spirit of that law and destructive to the morals of the most numerous class and to the welfare of all. A great source of abuse is the out-door relief afforded to the able-bodied."
  This is what the overseer of Kettering said as to the demoralised state into which the labouring classes had been brought—
  "The men's remark is—'I must have my 12s. or 10s. a week whether I work or not. I would not be such a fool as to work. Blast work! Damn me if I work!'"
  That is a specimen of what England was reduced to in those days by lax administration of the poor law. Since 1832, when the poor law was made more stringent, the number of friendly societies has increased from 300 to between 2,000 and 3,000. And why have they increased so enormously? It is entirely owing to the spirit of independence and thrift which has been established; and I would impress upon your Lordships the importance of this question not being dealt with except by His Majesty's Government after full inquiry. I cannot do better than conclude by reading to your Lordships the last passage in an address on "The English Poor Law and Friendly Societies," by Mr. Chance, M.A., barrister-at-law—
  "The friendly societies have, up to now, fought a splendid fight for freedom and in-

  19
  dependence. I pray that they may not be misled, but that they will steel themselves against the temptations which a few leaders, false to the whole tradition of the friendly society movement, are holding out to them; and I hope guardians of the poor will not give way to the importunity of these false guides, but hold on to the sheet anchor of the English poor law, which is, that relief should only be given out of the public moneys to the destitute, and that in relieving destitution every source of income of the applicant must be taken into account."
  Those are sound words, and I believe that instead of passing another Bill to make compulsory what is now permissive, it would be better to repeal the permissive Act of 1894.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I hope the House will not reject this Bill without full consideration. The Government take no part with regard to it, and, though the President of the Local Government Board strongly supported the Bill in the House of Commons, that was not an official act on his part, and the opinions which I shall express will only be my own personal opinions. You have had placed before you the views of a great many bodies, and there has been a question raised as to whether opinion has been sufficiently obtained or not. If I may be allowed to say so, I care very little for the opinions of the friendly societies themselves, who may be interested, or of the Charity Organisation Society. I agree with my noble friend that we ought not to be governed entirely by the opinion of the House of Commons, but I venture, with great respect, to ask him whether he is justified in speaking of Members of the other House as vote-hunting humanitarians. It is possible that Gentlemen so styled may make it a pretext for moving the adjournment of the House. I can assure the noble Lord that when I was in the House of Commons hon. Members always spoke of him and other noble Lords with bated breath. What are the real merits of this Bill? A strong feeling has grown up in this

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ripon, M.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain)

  Mayo, E.

  Portland, D.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Carrington, E.

  Bath, M.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Bristol, M.

  Denbigh, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Jersey, E.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  country that every consideration should be shown to the man who has displayed habits of thrift, and that everything that can be done should be done to raise up that portion of the community who may be described as the deserving poor. One statute passed which would show that we looked favourably upon this kind of thrift would be of far more value than all the precepts. Let us take the case of two agricultural labourers discussing the question whether they should contribute to a friendly society or not. The first man says, "I am a poor man, but I am going to pay 6d. a week into a friendly society, and I do so because I know that when I am sick I shall have 5s. a week to supplement the relief I may get." The other says, "I am going to spend my 6d. a week in the public-house, because if you go to the union they will take the 5s. a week you get from your friendly society from you in relief of the rates, or they will say—'Look to your friendly society payment; we will give you nothing.' Thus we shall be exactly in the same position, as I shall have 5s. a week from the rates, except that I shall have been having my beer all the time." If this Bill is rejected the argument of the man who goes to the public-house would be unanswerable. I desire to see every encouragement given to the thrifty man. Three-fourths of the unions have already accepted the Act of 1894, and what is required now is uniformity. If this measure will encourage the thrifty man as against the man who spends all his money, is it wise to reject it? The noble Lord contended that if you allow this in regard to friendly societies you ought to extend it to other societies, but I would appeal to your Lordships not to allow the best to be the enemy of the good.
  On Question, Whether "now" shall stand part of the motion, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 39; Non-contents, 66.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Monkswell, L. [Teller.]

  Balfour, L.

  James, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Battersea, L.

  Kelvin, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Brassey, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Tredegar, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Digby, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D.

  Cross, V.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.);

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Harlech, L.

  Frankfort De Montmorency, V.

  Hatherton, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Goschen, V.

  Heneage, L. [Teller.]

  Bandon, E.

  Hampden, V.

  Hobhouse, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Hylton, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Lindley, L.

  Fevarsham, E.

  Portman, V.

  Lingen, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Templetown, V.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Grey, E.

  Norton, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Morley, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (.E. Bessborough.)

  Munster, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Northbrook, E. [Teller.]

  Belper, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Stamford, E

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Stanmore, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Castletown, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Westmeath, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Ventry, L.

  de Ros, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Cobham, V.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Bill to be read 3a this day three months.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  TRANSVAAL CONCESSIONS COMMISSIONERS—THE NETHERLANDS RAILWAY COMPANY.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, Irise to call attention to the Report of the Transvaal Concessions Commissioners in regard to the Netherlands South African Railway Company, and to their finding that—
  "the company did initiate and organise, before war was declared, elaborate plans, and afterwards effectively carried them out, causing great damage, delay, and loss to the Queen's armies"—
  to ask what fine or other punishment it is intended to inflict for these belligerent operations conducted by a private company against the Queen; also, to ask whether any representations have been made by any foreign Government in regard to this company; and, if so, whether the Papers can be laid upon the
  22
  Table. I think I may take it for granted that nearly all your Lordships are acquainted with the Report of the Commissioners who were appointed to inquire into the Transvaal concessions—at least, with that portion of their Report which relates to the Netherlands South African. Railway Company. This company has played a very important part in South African history since it was made, some ten or eleven years ago. Your Lordships will remember that the undertaking was essentially Hollander in character. Its administration was composed of nine or ten commissioners, one half at least of whom were Hollanders resident in Holland. Two out of three of the managing directors had to be, and, in. practice, the whole of them were, Hollanders. The company itself had been intimately connected with the Transvaal Government, even so far as this, that it had been entrusted with the collection of part of the customs of the country. In this war the railway company, as I have said, has played a very important part, and I desire to place before the House briefly an account of what has taken place. I am happy to be able to assure your Lordships that it will not be neces-

  23
  sary for me to read at length long extracts from the three Blue-books, which, however, are amply deserving of careful consideration and attention from your Lordships. It so happens that in this case the evidence is of a very direct kind. Indeed, all the statements which I shall make—and I shall make some very positive statements—are drawn, without exception, from the diary of M. Van Kretschmar, the directing manager of the railway in the Transvaal, from the evidence of officials of the railway who took part in the war against the British Government, and from other direct sources of that kind.
  When the war was in contemplation, and some months before it began—in the month, I think, of July—M. Van Kretschmar, who was a Hollander of the Hollanders, or, rather, I ought to say, a Boer of the Boers, took upon himself to become the direct adviser of the Transvaal Government. He saw at that time that they were not, as he thought, properly prepared for the possible invasion of their territories by British troops through Natal. He accordingly consulted General Joubert, and afterwards had a number of interviews with the Transvaal Executive Committee, the result of which was that he concocted and they accepted a plan for the destruction of the bridge at Standerton, and other bridges of the sort. They had it fixed firmly in their mind that there would be an invasion by railway, possibly by armored trains, and they prepared with the help of M. Van Kretschmar to meet that contingency. I shall ask your Lordships to draw a distinction between M. Van Kretschmar in his private capacity, and in his capacity as director of the railway. In his private capacity, as I have said, he was a Hollander of the Hollanders. He hoped and believed that the result of the war would be a Greater Holland. He wrote that—
  "The fall of England shall be the crown of the end of the 19th century."
  And he thoroughly believed, as appeared from his letters, that the success of the Boers would be quick and certain. When events took a different course, he undoubtedly went through a great deal of agony of mind. His last words were—
  "Gone are the dreams of greater Holland for ever. We have mistaken our kinsmen,
  24
  who are tired of us. We are too good for them. There is an end for us of all our illusions about South Africa."
  M. Van Kretschmar is by no means the only person who would be glad to see the fall of England. No one can prevent him entertaining these opinions in his private capacity. But M. Van Kretschmar had another capacity—that of managing director of a private railway. He acted as the trusted adviser of the Transvaal Executive before the outbreak of the war. He went further. He was anxious to take part in the war himself, and to make the officials of his company take part in it. So he suggested to the Executive Government that they should put in force Article 22 of the original concession, under which he hoped that he might be able to do a great deal for them without running very much risk for his company. He proposed to levy a force for them among the officials of the company. I may say that the Transvaal Executive thought, in the first instance, not being very clever, that it was hardly necessary to put Article 22 in force, because they knew how good M. Van Kretschmar's intentions were; but he showed them that it was in his interests, and with a view of saving the company, that he wished it to be put in force, and eventually they did put it in force. Thereupon M. Van Kretschmar proceeded to issue to his staff certain service orders. In the first, on 7th September he announced that half-pay would be allowed to single men and two-thirds pay to married men who were commandeered; and that volunteers would be given leave of absence, but would not receive salary. The latter proved to be rather unfortunate, because there was very little volunteering, and he then issued a further order which said that—
  "The submitting of names to the committees shall not be considered as voluntary offering of services, and is generally recommended."
  He never warned those who were serving under him, and who were not burghers, that it was not in the power of the Transvaal Government to force them to serve, and after a time he discharged those who would not volunteer. These men went to their consuls and complained, and this is what M. Van Kretschmar wrote to the consuls on 9th March, 1900—

  25
  "When it appeared that the traffic decreased considerably we had a larger staff than we required, who, under the existing conditions, we were entitled to discharge. We considered, however, that these persons also should participate in the advantage which was granted to, those who were compelled to do military duty. Of which offer many availed themselves. Those who do not like this may, according to the provisions applicable to them, obtain their honorable discharge."
  That was his way of preserving neutrality. The result was that a large body of men entered the service of the Transvaal Republic; and I may say, further, that they received their pay from the company, who, as they said, "debited it to the Transvaal Republic," whatever that might mean. These men did almost incalculable damage to the British forces and colonies. One lot of them—a bridge-destroying lot—went down into Natal, blew up the bridge at Colenso and other bridges lower down, and when the fortunes of war turned, and they were on the retreat, they blew up every bridge in succession. They destroyed the tunnel at Laing's Nek, and subsequently destroyed and made useless a great portion of their rolling stock. Another lot went down into Cape Colony, blew up bridges there, and did other damage. The main body at Pretoria, under M. Van Kretschmar himself, made ammunition, repaired cannon, and discharged active military services of every kind, all the time receiving pay direct from the railway company. The evidence of Lord Roberts and Sir Percy Girouard before the Commission showed that their attitude was insulting and defiant. They said they would obey the orders of no one except the Transvaal Government, and, to quote the words of Sir Percy Girouard, "they behaved precisely as a belligerent State railway." Let us consider for a moment Section 22 of the Concession. I will read it to your Lordships, because it is upon that section that M. Van Kretschmar and his company rely. The section is as follows—
  "In case of danger of war, in war time, or in case of intestine disturbances the Government may, in the interest of the defense or of the public peace, dispose of the railway and all that is required for the use thereof, and may order the ordinary traffic thereon to cease wholly or in part, and command all such measures to be taken as they may deem necessary."
  What is the meaning of that section, and what did M. Van Kretschmar take
  26
  it to mean? M. Van Kretschmar took it that it entitled him to raise a force, even composed of persons belonging to nations which were friendly with the British. Government, to assist the Transvaal. The question was put to him by the Chairman of the Commission—
  "Do you consider that an Article in a commercial concession such as Article 22 would justify you in organizing a force of men belonging to nations friendly to the English Government in an army arrayed against that Government?"
  And M. Van Kretschmar replied—
  "Well, I did organize that force, but I think. that the Government had a right to expect us to organize that force from the men in our employ."
  He interpreted the Article in his own way without consulting any lawyers. But a strange state of things would prevail if a private company were enabled, by any arrangement with the Government, to evade all principles of international law and aid and abet that Government by military action. The undertaking may be a very good one as between M. Van Kretschmar and the Transvaal Government, but what force has it when applied to other countries? Further, did M. Van Kretschmar or his commissioners really believe that their action was covered by this Article? M. Van Kretschmar destroyed a great many papers, but I cannot understand how he was foolish enough to leave his diary and these incriminating letters behind. This is what happened in the first instance. The commissioners were very pleased with what he had done, and asked him to send the names of some of the members of the staff who had performed these valiant actions in order that they might be inserted in the annual report. But, all of a sudden, the commissioners changed their mind, and in reply to a letter from them in April, 1899, M. Van Kretschmar wrote—
  "Your remarks with regard to strict neutrality are not very refreshing to me. I have, by asking for special orders, tried as much as possible to save the appearance of neutrality. According to your interpretation in your last letter I have not always succeeded in this."
  M. Van Kretschmar's own words were—
  "I am afraid we have hopelessly compromised ourselves in deed, word, and writing. We have made cannon and ammunition; we have sold material to the Republics; we have

  27
  blown up bridges on English territory, and have not discharged our staff on commando."
  I must apologies to your Lordships for going through these occurrences, but I have done so as shortly as I could. And now I come to the point. What is to be done to this company? In the first place, what is the amount of damage that has been done? M. Van Kretschmar was asked in the witness-box whether he could form any estimate of the damage, but he said he had no means of doing so. He quite admits that the damage has been enormous; in fact, it is impossible to deny it. What, then, is to be done? This is not a question as to shareholders and debenture holders; it is the case of a private company which has made war on this country. I submit that the question of fining, or of making some arrangement that would really go home to the company, is the first matter that ought to be considered. The commissioners and managers, and the shareholders who elected those officials, were responsible for the conduct of this company. If the Boers had been successful they would, no doubt, have reaped great advantages which they would not have refused to accept; but matters took a different turn, and the company thought it would be well to write to Mr. Chamberlain. The following is the concluding passage of the letter, which is dated 14th January of this year—
  "In conclusion, we beg to point out that His Majesty's Government is now in possession of the company's railway, and that the share holders and debenture holders have for many months been deprived of all receipts from the line. This state of things is financially very serious, and we trust it will not be prolonged. We have not yet been informed whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to exercise the rights and fulfill the obligations of the Government which granted the concession, or what other course is in contemplation."
  This was signed by M. Vanden Wall Bake and M. J. Van Kretschmar, who set to work and organized the destruction of this very railway, and who now say that it is inconvenient that they are not getting any receipts from it. The annual meeting of the company was held at Amsterdam on 29th June. M. Vanden Wall Bake having spoken, a gentleman who appeared for the French shareholders—Maitre Stuart—asked the directors whether they could furnish any information in reference to the statements
  28
  in the English Blue-book on the Transvaal concessions. A reply was given on behalf of the board, who declared themselves convinced of having done their whole duty, and added that they would not hesitate to do the same should they find themselves again confronted by the same difficulties. That sounded very well, and Maitre Stuart, in the name of the French shareholders, said he "took note of the correct attitude of the representatives of the company." But, in view of the fact that the French group was not represented on the board, he observed that the French shareholders could not assume responsibility for the board, if there should be any question thereof, since the company had been managed exclusively by the German and Dutch shareholders. Maitre van Nicrop, who, I should judge from his name, must have represented the Dutch shareholders, said he had no desire to criticize the proceedings of the board, but he wished to say that, reservation having been made by a certain group of shareholders, he must at least make a similar reservation on behalf of the shares which he represented. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that finally the proposal of the board to adjourn the meeting till October was adopted unanimously. It is to be observed that no one is responsible. The directors and commissioners claim to be covered by Section 22, and the shareholders hold themselves as not responsible when assured by their directors that they have done nothing but what was quite correct. A committee to protect the interests of German shareholders, which is called the Schultz Comite, claim to represent 8,699 shares "all honorably transferred since the war began," but I should like to see those transfers. I was very much struck with an enclosure which was sent to the Government by the German Embassy, in which this committee say:—
  "The acquisition of shares has markedly increased in Germany in proportion to the success of English arms in South Africa."
  And they go on to say:—
  "If the value depreciates just those shareholders will be affected who bought on the strength of the victory of English arms."
  There's a compliment to this country! The French and the Dutch have started

  29
  a committee too, and they write over and say they are responsible for 4,695 shares. They do not say they are transfers, but they state that 4,695 "innocent" shares are held in France and in Amsterdam. According to a Return which was issued eighteen months ago at my request the Transvaal Republic held 5,713 shares out of a total number of 14,000. These two committees say they are responsible for 13,394 shares between them, and I desire to know what has become of the 5,713 shares which were held by the Transvaal Republic.
  One word with regard to foreign Governments. If there should be any representation made by a foreign Government, the best reply would be to send them a copy of the Blue-books from which I have quoted, and ask them what in their opinion the board deserves. But this is not a question of shares and debentures. What does it matter to us whether these shares are held by Frenchmen, Dutchmen, or Englishmen? The company must stand or fall by the action of its administration, and indemnity is the first and most important question to which His Majesty's Government should direct attention. What is the damage that has been done? None of us can measure it. The war has cost £1,250,000 per week. How many weeks may we fairly attribute to the officials of this company? Immense has been the amount of damage the company has done to its own property that they might do damage to us, and they have persevered in it to the bitter end. If the war had resulted in favor of the Boers we know perfectly well what would have been the result. M. Van Kretschmar and his Hollander compatriots would have profited largely, and so would the shareholders. Fortunately, the war has not ended in that way, and M. Van Kretschmar sees that all his dreams of greater Holland have vanished. What is to be done now? I do not wish to urge a policy of revenge or anything of that kind, but this is a case for the application of the principles of strict justice. A private company has chosen to act as if it were a belligerent nation, and it must take the consequences of such action. It would be an unfortunate thing, indeed, if this private company were to furnish an example to other com-
  30
  panies that it is possible to defy all the first principles of international law with comparative impunity.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquees of LANSDOWNE): I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but I am afraid I must tell him that the question is not one to which it is possible for us to give an answer at present. We have, it is true, had before us for some weeks the Report of the Transvaal Concessions Commission. That Report, however, deals not only with the Netherlands Railway but with many other South African concessions, numbering twenty-three in all. The questions involved are questions of great difficulty and gravity—questions of international law and of general policy, which it is necessary for us to examine not only with the utmost care, but with a full knowledge of the facts, and also with reference to the arrangements which will have to be made for the future administration of the two late Republics. We cannot, in these circumstances, undertake to state at this moment how we shall deal with the particular concession to which the question refers. But I am able to say that it seems to us that in dealing with the holders of the securities of the company we shall have to draw a distinction between those persons who had acquired an interest in the railway as bona fide investors before the outbreak of the war and those whose interest was acquired subsequently. It is also to be borne in mind that the Proclamation of 19th March, 1900, gave notice that Her Majesty's Government would not recognize as valid or effectual—
  "Any alienations of property, whether of lands, railways, mines, or mining rights, within the territories of the South African Republic or Orange Free State, or any interest therein, of whatsoever nature, or any charges or encumbrances of whatsoever description, upon any such property or interest as aforesaid, effected, declared, charged, or made by the Governments of the South African Republic or Orange Free State subsequently to the date of this proclamation."
  In order to ascertain how far such a distinction as I have suggested can be established, we propose to invite all holders of the securities of the Netherlands South African Railway Company

  31
  to supply us with full particulars as to the extent of their holding and the date at which they acquired it. Measures will be taken at once with this object. In reply to the other question of the noble Lord, communications have been received from several foreign governments in regard to the pecuniary interests of their nationals in the Netherlands South African Railway.

  TRAMWAY UNDERTAKINGS—CONSENTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES—AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDER 22.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, for some weeks, or I may say for some months, your Lordships may have observed a motion in my name on the Paper, with no day named, for an amendment of Standing Order 22, which relates to the necessity of tramway undertakings obtaining the consents of the councils of the districts through which they pass before they can be introduced into Parliament. I have, in consequence of circumstances which I will presently as shortly as I can tell your Lordships, withdrawn that motion for the present, but I thought it was due to the House, and also I was anxious on my own account to make a short statement to the House giving the reasons I have for taking this action, and also the reasons I had for originally placing the motions on your Lordships' Table.
  The Standing Order in question is one which is familiar to those of your Lordships who are interested in Private Bill legislation. It provides that no company can promote a tramway undertaking, nor can any municipality promote a tramway undertaking outside its own district, without obtaining the consent of the council through whose district the tramway passes, or, if there are several districts through which the tramway passes, of councils representing two-thirds of the whole length the tramway passes. Now this is not merely an ordinary power of the district councils to oppose, but it is what is called an "Examiners' Order," which means that it must be proved before the Examiner before the project can be in any way discussed by Parliament. It has occurred to me for some time past that that
  32
  Standing Order is not working very satisfactorily, and last year I discusses the question with my right hon. friend Mr. Chaplin, who was then at the head of the Local Government Board, and we decided that it was desirable that some modification should be introduced into the Order. In the middle of July Mr. Chaplin, who as I have said was then at the head of the Local Government Board, said on the Third Reading of the Housing of the Working Classes Bill—
  "After a conference with the Chairmen of Committees in both Houses, I am in a position to say that the Government are willing to make such alterations in that Standing Order—"
  that is the Standing Order I am now referring to—
  "and propose them in due course, as will modify those restrictions and allow the question to be brought before Parliament and leave to the Committee the decision as to whether the matter should go forward or not."
  A little later on in the session my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale, speaking on behalf of the London County Council, asked me a question in the House with regard to this modification of the Standing Order, and I then expressed my sympathy with him in desiring that modification, and I practically undertook to introduce an Amendment into the Standing Order to effect the object which at that time we both had in view. I did not think it was right last session, in the middle of August, to move so important an Amendment of the Standing Order, and I thought it would be in every way desirable that local bodies throughout the country should have ample notice that such a motion was in contemplation and that they should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it.
  At the beginning of this session I again gave notice of this motion, but, my Lords, I then found that the London County Council were not so anxious to have the Amendment which they had desired last year, and I also found as the session went on that there was little or no intention of moving the proposed Amendment in the House of Commons. I need not point out to the House that it is very desirable that the Standing Orders of the two Houses should be the same, or, as nearly as possible the same, and even if that were not necessary it

  33
  would be perfectly useless for me to move the Amendment which was in my name on the Paper unless the same course was taken in the House of Commons as, of course, if one House insisted on the consent as a preliminary condition to the Bill being considered in Parliament, it would be perfectly useless for the other House to abolish that consent. Under those conditions, which I am afraid I have had to explain at some little length, I have for a time, at any rate, abandoned the motion which stood in my name.
  I should further explain that I received in the course of the session a great many representations from local bodies as to the desirability or the undesirability of the course that I was advocating. There was by no means unanimity. I found in the country with regard to the question, but undoubtedly with the London municipalities, and also at present, I think, though I speak subject to correction as to that, in the London County Council, there is a feeling adverse to the course that I propose to take. The London County Council and the municipalities in London are really in a different position with regard to tramways from municipalities in other parts of the country. In London the municipalities are not the local authority under the Tramways Act; the London County Council is the tramway authority, but the municipalities are the road authorities. In other municipalities the road authority and the tramway authority are at one; so that in London if the tramway authority (that is, the London County Council) desire to make a tram-Way through any district they cannot do so without obtaining the preliminary consent of the municipality through which they desire the line to run, and if a company desire to run a tramway through any district they have not merely to get the consent of the municipality as road authority, but they also have to get the consent of the London County Council as the tramway authority. I found, as I said, that in London the municipalities were against my suggestion entirely, and an idea seemed to prevail in their minds that I was anxious in some way to derogate from the powers that they, or rather the Vestries who preceded them, enjoyed. Now I wish in the most emphatic and
  34
  distinct way to repudiate anything of the kind. My Amendment had really less to do with London than the rest of the kingdom. My chief objections to the Order are not with regard to London, though there are inconveniences in the area of London itself; and it was absolutely absurd to suppose that my proposed Amendments of the Standing Order were directed in any way against these new municipalities of London. They were directed against what I thought was a mistake in the Standing Orders as applied to every municipality and local authority throughout the whole of England and Wales. That, I think, disposes of any idea that may be entertained that I had any desire to injure the prestige or the powers of the London municipalities.
  But now, my Lords, if you will allow me, I wish to explain briefly why it was that I thought the Standing Order was not acting satisfactorily. The Tramways Act, as the House is aware, was passed more than thirty years ago—in 1870—and in the Tramways Act, which dealt only with Board of Trade Provisional Orders, it was laid down that the consents of local authorities should be given. Well, as I have told the House before, the local authorities in those days differed very much from what they would do now if the Act were reenacted, and I would impress upon my noble friends in the Government the importance of reviewing the tramway legislation with a view of putting matters of that kind right. The Tramways Act, of course, did not impose upon the promoters of Bills the same disabilities that it did upon promoters of Orders, but the House of Commons, very soon after 1870, and the House of Lords, I think, a year or two later still, made this Standing Order, which I now desire to amend, which rendered the consents of local authorities necessary as a preliminary condition to all tramway schemes being brought before Parliament. For reasons I shall presently give I do not think that that worked satisfactorily. It is perfectly true, and it has been suggested to me as a remedy, that the Standing Orders Committee has power to dispense with any of the Standing Orders. But, my Lords, in the case of this particular Standing Order, with two slight exceptions,

  35
  the Order has never been dispensed with, and those exceptions took place this year under circumstances with which I need not trouble your Lordships in detail.
  It seems to me that to introduce this power of dispensation, to discuss this question as to the reasonableness or the unreasonableness of the refusal of a local body to assent to a tramway scheme before the Standing Order Committee, would almost necessarily involve a discussion to some extent on the merits, and noble Lords who sit on the Standing Order Committee are very well aware that it is not a body before which questions of merits can be conveniently discussed. Therefore, my Lords, on that ground, and on that ground alone, I thought that the question could not be solved by giving the Standing Orders Committee any greater power than they have at present of dispensing with a Standing Order. Quite admitting, absolutely admitting, the right of districts through which tramways are going to run to have a strong voice in the matter, my suggestion was that before a scheme could go before a Committee the consent of all the local authorities should be proved, but that if it was withheld the Committee before whom the Bill was taken, if they considered that the consent had been unreasonably withheld, might dispense with it and the Report accordingly. That seemed to me to give the local authorities a very large and a very important power in the matter which I think they ought to have, and which I need not tell your Lordships they would inevitably have before any Committee, but at the same time it did not actually prohibit any Bill which did not previously obtain these consents being brought before Parliament.
  Now with regard to my reasons for thinking a change desirable. In the first place, since 1870 the question of tramways has undergone a very large and very important change. At that time I think I am not exaggerating when I say that they were regarded by the majority of people as somewhat in the light of a nuisance. Well, they are not universally popular now, but the introduction of electricity to traction, and the enormous development of these tramways, especially in the very populous parts of the country, render it really a
  36
  very important national mode of locomotion, and one which is likely to go on developing from time to time. It also has a very important bearing on the question of the housing of the working classes in populous centers. I should also say besides that, that with this great extension the tramways have somewhat developed out of their actual and purely local character, and you are getting through the great centers of industry, such as Manchester, and the north of Warwickshire and Staffordshire, long lines of tramways joining together, which are in the nature rather of through routes than local traffic. That is the first change. The second change is one of perhaps less importance, but it is important. It is that the local authorities have now what they had not in 1870, a power not only to make, but also to work and to own the tramways themselves. Your Lordships will see at once that it is scarcely fair to give a municipality, especially when it is constructing a tramway outside the limits of its own district, an absolute veto on all other schemes, because by that means you are giving one possible competitor a power of crushing at once every rival who might come into the field. I do not think that is fair, and I do not think it is in any way conducive to the public interests. Then I was mentioning the development in populous districts. There is this point to be considered—that you have many of these large towns and large urban districts with enormous populations that are separated from one another by rural districts. In those cases if the companies or municipalities desire to connect by through tramways these large centers of population, they may be absolutely prohibited from doing so till they have obtained the consent of some long, but possibly from a population point of view, far less important district constituting the rural district dividing the two places. That I do not think right either. I do not think it is right that so large a power should be put into the hands of a comparatively sparsely populated district, of absolutely vetoing schemes which might be of very great advantage to the districts surrounding. Then, if I am not exhausting the House, I may mention another reason, namely, that this power of absolute veto is not

  37
  Consonant with the principles of legislation at the present day. I admit that the electric lighting legislation is not quite on all fours; it is the under surface of the road, not the surface that is used, but in the case of electric lighting the districts have no absolute power of veto; they have a power of opposing, which local authorities ought to have, but that power is modified, and may be overridden by the Board of Trade in their Provisional Orders if they report to the House that they have done so. But a much more striking and analogous case is that of the light railways. In the Light Railway Acts there is no power at all required of the local districts or the local authorities—absolutely no power whatever—and so you have this anomaly. You may have a long line of tramway alternating with a light railway, which differs from it merely in name, and because they come under a different Act of Parliament, in one case the absolute consent is required and in the other case no consent at all is required. I do not know what my noble friend Lord Jersey, if he were in the House, could tell us as to how the absence of these consents has worked with regard to light railways. I could not speak as to it myself, but all I can say is that I have heard no complaints about it, and as far as I know the local authorities' opinions have always been taken, and so far as I have heard have always had their proper effect on the minds of the Commissioners.
  But now, my Lords, I come to my last and my most important reason for thinking that a change of the Standing Order is necessary, and it is this. I take it that when Parliament in the Tramways Act of 1870 laid down that the consents of the district councils or the municipalities should be required, and when we followed suit in our Standing Orders of both Houses, what we intended, and what Parliament intended, was that the local authorities should express the opinion generally of the localities as to whether a tramway was inexpedient or expedient, or that possibly they might refuse to allow it to be adopted because the streets were too narrow, or because there were other features in the district that rendered it inexpedient. I think that would be very reasonable. Even if they had gone beyond that and said that in
  38
  certain cases they would allow tramways to be constructed, if at the expense of the company wanting to run them certain improvements were made—certain streets widened, and so on—I think that would be reasonable enough. But what did happen—and I am speaking now from my knowledge of the number of tramway Bills that come before me in the Private Bill Office—was that the local authorities—I am not making this a general assertion, but I am saying that it constantly happens that the local authorities, chiefly the small ones, use this power of refusal as a lever to extract terms out of the promoters—be they companies or neighboring municipalities. The process has been to postpone giving their consent till very nearly the time when the Bill had to be deposited in November, and then to impose such conditions upon the tramway companies or the municipality which was running the tramway out of their own district as would, in my opinion, in many cases be exceedingly onerous and very unfair. I do not say that this is universally the case, by any means. I saw a letter in a newspaper yesterday which said that my Amendment was unnecessary, because in one or two cases tramways had been fairly treated. I am not for a moment denying that, and I go further and say that, in most of the largest constituencies, probably the tramways are very fairly treated, but there are cases in which this power of withholding consent gives the local authorities a leverage which I think they exercise in most cases very unfairly.
  Now to give your Lordships an idea of the conditions that are exacted. In the first place, in some cases clauses have been introduced into Bills asking for payment for the use of the roads; in other cases tramway companies have been required to light the streets, which is obviously the business of the municipality itself; in other cases they have been required to widen the streets where the widening was not required for purely tramway purposes. I quite admit that widening for purely tramway purposes would be a proper and legitimate thing to ask, but these conditions are accepted by the companies under pressure and they are introduced into Bills as agreed clauses—"protective clauses" as they are called. Those clauses are exceedingly

  39
  difficult for me to deal with. They are passed by Committees, who probably never look at them, and then they come before me. I am bound to say that they are very difficult to deal with, because I am told on every occasion "these are clauses that have been agreed to and it is very hard to deprive us of what we have obtained," but I am bound to say that where I think the public interest is not rightly protected I have in many cases very much cut those clauses about. For instance, my Lords, I never have allowed in any Bill a clause authorizing a way leave to be charged for the use of the roads. It seems to me that that is altogether contrary to public policy and contrary to the intention of Parliament either in the Standing Orders or in the Tramways Act. I could quote a number of cases of these conditions, but I will not weary the House by doing so. I should like to make one quotation from a Report of the House of Commons Committee as an illustration of what may be done. This is a Report on a Glasgow District Tramways Bill. It is a public document and therefore I may quote it—
  "The Committee find the preamble not proved, but they desire to put it on record that in their view the original scheme was a good one and calculated to be of much service to the district, but it has been so mutilated and loaded with conditions by the conflicting interests and the excessive demands of several local bodies that at present it appears to the Committee to be wholly unworkable"—
  And on that ground the scheme was thrown out, after costing the promoters a very large sum of money indeed. My Lords, I confess that it seems to me exceedingly undesirable that you should leave this absolute veto, which gives a lever to the local authorities for haggling terms, and which also encourages the tramway companies or the tramway promoters, whoever they may be, to bribe the local authorities into giving consents. It seems to me that it is absolutely improper, and that these schemes should go to a Committee to inquire whether the consents of the local authorities had been reasonably or unreasonably withheld.
  My Lords, which is really the main reason why I think the Standing Order should be altered. There are minor reasons: one which I referred to just now, namely the difficulty in London
  40
  itself (but not exclusively in London) of the double power of veto of the road authority and the local authority. I do not know whether I made myself clear as to the difference between the two, but this is what happens. It has actually happened in London within the last year. A tramway company got its Bill consented to by one of the London municipalities through whose area it was to run, but immediately. Afterwards it went for the consent of the London County Council—which was only remotely interested, and only interested as the owner of a tramway in another part of London—and they refused their consent. Therefore you have got this curious anomaly that the London County Council, who are the tramway authority, though not the road authority, were able to prevent a scheme being carried into effect which the local authority and the road authority were anxious should be carried into effect for the benefit of their district.
  THE EARL OF CARRINGTON: May I ask what district that was?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: Hammersmith. The same conflict arises in the case of county councils. County councils are owners only of the main roads. They are not owners of the ordinary roads, and they are not the local authority for tramway purposes, but yet county councils can prohibit a tramway going along their road even though it is desired by the district authority. I may mention now that I have had on several occasions lately clauses introduced into private Bills giving the county councils power at the end of a specified time to purchase tramway undertakings. I have considered it right, and shall continue to do so unless the House alters its present legislation, to strike those clauses out of the Bill on the ground that the county councils are not tramway authorities under the law as it now stands, and that therefore they have no right whatever to have any power of purchasing tramway undertakings.
  The arguments, of course, in favor of retaining the Standing Order as it is at present are that the local authority are the best judges of the need of the district; that by the power of absolute veto they

  41
  can crush any unpopular schemes without the expense of opposing in Parliament, and that they are unable to protect frontagers and to save them the expense of Parliamentary opposition. I quite admit that there is a great deal of force in these arguments, but I think the protection to frontagers is a somewhat imaginary one, and also I think the question of the expense of opposition is rather exaggerated. In nine cases out of ten the opposition to tramways is not absolute; it is merely the obtaining of some of these protective clauses to which I have referred. I know as a fact that in almost all cases the local authorities spend very considerable amounts of money in feeing counsel and agents with a view of seeing those clauses of the Bill through all their stages in Parliament.
  My Lords, I must apologise for having detained the House so long, but I should like before I sit down to say that though I quite admit that a great deal of force should be given to those arguments in favour of retaining the Standing Order as it is, yet I think the reasons against it are still stronger. My reasons, if I may be allowed to recapitulate them, are these: that it is not theoretically right that anyone or any body of persons should have an absolute power of veto and should be able to prevent a scheme coming in any shape before Parliament against their will; that it is against the principles of modern legislation, especially against the principles of the Light Railway Act; that it is not right for a rival proprietor (as it is in the case of large municipalities) to have the power of absolutely stopping any rivals from coming into the field; that there is an inconvenience in the double veto of the road authority and the local authority, and, above all, that it is not expedient or in the public interests that you should give to the local authorities such a strong power of exacting conditions that may be very onerous upon an important national industry, and also that you should encourage the promoters of these undertakings to bribe the local authorities in some way or other. When I use the word "bribe," I desire distinctly to explain that I do not mean money bribe; I mean bribing by offering some advantage in order to get the consent of the local authority.
  42
  One cure for this is, as I said before, for the Standing Orders Committee to have greater power of dispensing with this Standing Order than it has at present, and for the reasons I have given I do not think that is advantageous. Another and a more heroic plan would be a complete alteration of our tramway legislation and an amendment of the tramway law, giving the Board of Trade greater powers of making Provisional Orders. I am not sure that it is not well worthy of the consideration of His Majesty's Government—and also to bring it somewhat more into line with the light railway legislation, which at present is really absurdly inconsistent with tramway legislation. I merely throw out these suggestions for consideration by His Majesty's Government. In the motion which I had on the Paper I resorted to what seemed to me the simplest and the easiest method of getting rid of the evils which I have endeavored to explain to the House. As I have said before, I have dropped the motion because I see no indication of its being taken up in another place, and it would be useless to take it up in this House unless it was taken up in the other House as well; but I feel very strongly about it, and if I get any sympathy here or elsewhere I shall be very glad to reintroduce the matter.
  I thought it was due to the House and also to my self to explain the position in which I stand with regard to this matter, and the reason why I have left the motion for so many months without naming a day for its consideration on the Paper of your Lordships.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASE—RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FRY COMMISSION.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN,in addressing to His Majesty's Government the following questions—

  (1) What recommendations of the Fry Commission have been adopted since 3rd May, 1899;

  (2) What recommendations have not been adopted.

  (3) What recommendations could not be adopted, without new legislation;

  (4) What objections are entertained by the existing tribunals to recommendations which they have so far refused to adopt;

  (5) Whether, and in what way, the average Prices of Irish agricultural produce and

  43
  stock (as annually published by the Land Commission, and now published by the Department of Agriculture) are considered and taken into account in the fixing of judicial rents;

  (6) Whether, in determining the fair rent of a holding, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, there are any (and, if so, what) "circumstances of the case, holding, and district" (other than that specified in Section 8, Sub-section 10) which the Land Commission do not take into account; and what are their reasons for refusing to take same into account;

  said: My Lords, in the few remarks which I am about to make I do not intend to make any personal attack on any members of the Land Commission in Ireland, for there are members of that Commission who have performed their work faithfully and loyally. My complaints are against the system and mode of administration, and it is with regret that I feel myself obliged once more to call your Lordships' attention to the Report and recommendations of the Fry Commission. I assure your Lordships that it is not a pleasure for me to do so; it is a necessity; it is an obligation; I only do it because I feel how just are the complaints of Irish landowners at the meager character of the efforts which have hitherto been made, either by His Majesty's Government or by the tribunals who are responsible for the proper administration of the Irish Land Acts, to endeavor to remedy the extraordinary defects in the procedure, practice, and methods of valuation heretofore adopted by those tribunals, and which were unanimously condemned in the remarkable Report presented to Parliament by the Fry Commissioners nearly three and a half years ago.
  I have already brought this subject under your Lordships' notice on two occasions—on the 28th July, 1898, and the 27th April 1899—and it was brought up on a third occasion by my noble friend Lord Colebrook, on the 9th July, 1900. It has also been several times brought under the notice of the House of Commons. Speaking in general terms, the replies which have been made by the Government have been of a fourfold character. We have been told, firstly, that the Government have no power to require the Land Commission to
  44
  adopt any of the recommendations of the Fry Commission, or to reform their procedure in any way; secondly, that the Land Commission do not approve of some of the Fry Commission recommendations, and will not adopt them; thirdly, that they have adopted, wholly or partly, certain recommendations of which they approve; and fourthly, that there are some recommendations which could not be adopted without fresh legislation.
  My Lords, it is no doubt true that the Government have, technically speaking, no control over the procedure of the Irish Land Commission; but it is also true, not technically, but absolutely, that the Fry Commission Report is the most sweeping and wholesale condemnation which has ever been pronounced by a Royal Commission upon the procedure and administration of any public department in the United Kingdom. In the face of this fact I deny that the Government are entitled to disclaim responsibility for the continuance of a system which has been so strongly condemned by a commission of their own appointing, and which was exceptionally well qualified to form an accurate judgment. Speaking on this subject in the House of Commons on 15th July, 1898, Mr. Arnold-Forster (who now is a member of the Government, and who has always been a most independent Member of Parliament) described the Report in these terms. He said:—
  "It is a fact that, at this moment in the United Kingdom there is a miscarriage of justice so great and so palpable that if such a thing were to occur in connection with a county court, or a session's court, in Great Britain, there would be something like a revolution."
  The opinion thus expressed by Mr. Arnold-Forster would, I believe, be almost universal if the English public could only be induced to make them selves acquainted with this report, and the evidence on which it was founded. Holding the same views myself, I deny that the Land Commission are entitled to continue to pursue any of the methods which have been so strongly and so justly condemned merely because they—the authors of them—do not approve of the remedies proposed by the Fry Commission. That Commission, however competent, made no claim to be

  45
  infallible; but the tribunal that objects to take their advice is bound to formulate, and give a fair trial, to alternative proposals, instead of merely allowing existing abuses to continue unabated. As to recommendations or reforms which have been adopted, and as to those which require fresh legislation, I shall have something to say when dealing with each of the questions which stand in my name on the paper.
  On the 27th April, 1899, I asked the Government (1) what alterations in procedure had been already adopted; (2) what further alterations had been decided upon; and (3) when would statutory rules be published to give effect to those alterations. In consequence of the short discussion which then took place my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who is always most gracious and obliging on these occasions, was good enough to obtain for my noble friend Lord Mayo, on 3rd May, 1899, a memorandum and file of papers from the Irish Land Commission, containing very full particulars of any reforms or alterations in procedure which had been adopted up to that date. In the first question on the paper I have therefore only asked for particulars of any reforms that have been adopted between the 3rd May, 1899, and the present time.
  The first reform on the schedule furnished by the Land Commission in May, 1899, related to new instructions for court values in cases of appeals. I am informed that these are good in themselves, but that in the opinion of land values of the greatest experience the inspection by court values continues to be of more than doubtful value as an independent valuation, owing to the fact that they are still furnished with the pink schedule, containing full particulars of the conclusions previously arrived at by the sub-commissioners, and that they do not attend the court at the re-hearing (when the evidence then given might qualify their opinions), and are not therefore examined on the evidence, either by the court or by the parties. The Fry Commission showed that there was a strong temptation to them under such a system to save them selves' trouble by simply copying the conclusions of the sub-commissioners.
  46
  This temptation still produces this result, for a case has been mentioned to me in which the sub-commissioners had reported that a holding lay north and south of the railway from Drogheda to Dundalk, instead of east and west, and the court values adopted the blunder in their so-called independent report.
  The second reform that has been adopted is that the judicial commissioner from time to time gives directions to have reports of important legal decisions printed and circulated amongst the members and staff of the Land Commission. This is an excellent step, but it would be more satisfactory if a list of such cases were published, and the public allowed to obtain copies of these decisions. Attention should then be called to any important decisions that have been overlooked.
  The third reform consisted in reverting to the old system (which had been temporarily abandoned) of informing the parties of the result of the court values' inspection, and enabling them to obtain copies of their report. This, of course, facilitates negotiations for an agreement between the parties wherever such is possible, but it has no bearing on the procedure of the Land Commission in any other respect.
  Fourthly, the Land Commission prescribed an alternative form of procedure, intended to induce the parties to adopt a sort of short cut to the fixing of a judicial rent; but the method proposed appears to have found little favor, and there is no prospect of its being largely adopted.
  Fifthly, either party has been enabled, for a small fee, to obtain a copy of the Pink Schedule relating to the case. This again is useful in negotiations between the parties, and in considering whether an appeal should be lodged.
  Sixthly, new forms of the Pink Schedule, suitable to the provisions of the Irish Local Government Act of 1898, have been provided, but in other respects they are practically the same as the Pink Schedule previously in use.
  The seventh reform was one from which much good might have been expected. It consisted in prescribing a course of examination for lay Assistant-Commissioners, but it was limited to new candidates, and is not applied to candi-

  47
  dates who may seek to be re-appointed on the expiration of any term for which they may have been already employed. The examination papers show that a considerable acquaintance is required with the use of the instruments employed for land surveying. But will it be believed that the Land Commission possesses no such instruments, and that the Sub-commissioners are never known to employ them? Again, I am informed that there is no practical examination whatever in the principles of land valuation, which is, of course, the most important subject of all. Indeed, I am told that, in the opinion of land values of great experience, the examination could be passed by mere book students, whose practical acquaintance with the principles and methods of land valuation would not enable them to make anything like an accurate valuation of land of any description. I could hardly find stronger proof of the absolute necessity of these candidates having a thorough knowledge of land valuation than by telling your Lordships that in the new instructions to Court Values, to which I have already referred, we find a paragraph in these words—
  "The land should be valued as if in fair normal condition, and not according to any exceptional or temporary condition, whether resulting from high cultivation or deterioration."
  I venture to say that none but values of the greatest practical experience could attempt to make a valuation upon these principles with any approach to accuracy. And, my Lords, who are the present values? I hope the noble Lord in the course of his reply will be able to give that information.
  The eighth reform so far adopted was a return to the old system, under which two lay Sub-commissioners were associated with each legal Sub-commissioner, and each holding was inspected by two lay Sub-commissioners. This method is, of course, indispensable, but it could do little of itself to secure trustworthy results unless other important defects in the system as a whole were also remedied.
  The ninth and last of the changes introduced prior to the 3rd May, 1899, consisted in requiring the tenant in some cases, and the landlord in all cases, to serve notice on the other side of certain
  48
  improvements if it was intended to claim any. It is comparatively easy for a tenant to do this, for in almost every case he knows what improvements were made on his holding, and whether or to what extent they were made by the tenant or by the landlord. The landlord, on the other hand, knows little or nothing in many cases of the origin or history of these improvements, for prior to 1881 there was nothing in the law to make it desirable or necessary for him to keep any record respecting them for his own protection. When, therefore, it was decided that cross notices should be served by each party on any branch of this question it would have been only fair that any notices required to be given by the landlord to the tenant should also be required to be given by the tenant to the landlord. The procedure, however, has been so framed as to make it as favorable as possible to the tenant and as difficult as possible for the landlord. It would be interesting if we could be given some intelligible reason for the procedure being one-sided.
  On the whole, my Lords, it will be seen that these changes or reforms have done and can do but little to make the procedure and valuations of the Land Commission more uniform or less unintelligible; and this brings me to the second question which I have placed on the Paper, as to recommendations of the Fry Commission which have not been adopted. Speaking generally, I may say that these non-adopted recommendations include all the reforms which were recommended by the Fry Commission with the object of securing uniformity of practice, or of valuations, or of making the rent-fixing tribunals less one-sided in their composition, or of removing what the Commissioners so truthfully described as "the almost universal dissatisfaction" with the procedure in appeals.
  My Lords, I ask why have all these most important and far-reaching recommendations been rejected or ignored? There is no dispute, I believe, as to the existence of the abuses and evils which they were proposed to mitigate or remedy. Are we to be told that these abuses and evils must continue because the Land Commission do not approve of the remedies proposed for them? Is there no obligation on the Land Com-

  49
  mission to propose and give a trial to other remedies if they do not like those proposed by the Fry Commission? Is there no obligation on His Majesty's Government to insist that at least some serious effort must be made to do justice, or to prevent injustice?
  I should weary your Lordships if I attempted to deal in any detail with those rejected recommendations. I must content myself with simply mentioning a few, to which I attach great importance, with the object of showing their reasonable and practical character. For instance, the Fry Commission recommend that more detailed instructions should be given to sub-commissioners, to guide them on difficult questions, and to remove the prevailing "diversity of opinion and of practice"; that, in fixing second-term rents, evidence of what was done at the fixing of the first-term rent should be taken into consideration, especially as regards improvements and the rate of interest placed on their value; that, in the Pink Schedule, in order to negative the tendency to allow illegally for an occupation interest, there should be a direction to state the annual value on the assumption that the holding is in the landlord's hands (an eminently logical and reasonable proposal, because Section 1 of the Act of 1896 requires them to state the fair rent, on the assumption that all improvements on the holding had been made or acquired by the landlord); that drains and fences allowed should be indicated on the large-scale Ordnance map when possible; that when an annual sum is allowed in respect of improvements, it should be stated whether the charge is to be permanent or to terminate at a given time; that court values should be a separate body of officials, distinct from sub-commissioners; that they should not be furnished with a copy of the Pink Schedule, but only with a map and description of the holding; that their report (to be independent) should be made in ignorance of the findings of the court below; that they should attend the court in appeals, should act as assessors to the Land Commission, and be liable to be examined by them; and that there should be a judicial definition or explanation of the words "fair rent."
  My Lords, I await with interest the
  50
  reply to my third question, as to the recommendations of the Fry Commission which could not be adopted without fresh legislation. I have heard on good legal authority that they are very few, and embrace hardly any of the important recommendations which I have just described.
  I look with even greater interest for information on my fourth question, as to the objections entertained by the existing tribunals to the recommendations which have not been adopted, especially to those which I have just mentioned as especially important and valuable.
  My fifth question deals with the average prices of Irish agricultural produce and stock, as officially published every year by the Land Commission from 1881 to 1899, and now published by the Irish Department of Agriculture. These figures, my Lords, have long been collected at great public expense. I desire to know whether any and what use is made of them in fixing judicial rents, especially because they in no way justify the enormous reductions which the Land Commission have been making in second-term judicial rents during the last four or five years. It is generally believed that no attention whatever is paid to these prices by either the sub-commissioners, the court values, or the chief commissioners; and yet, if properly applied, and coupled with figures showing the fluctuations in the cost of production, they ought to be of the most material assistance in revising at the present time any rent that had been fixed, judicially or otherwise, since 1881.
  As regards my sixth question, I gave private notice to His Majesty's Government that I chiefly desired information as to whether the element of fair competition or market value, and the fluctuations in the cost of production are regarded, and taken into account (and, if so, in what way) as "circumstances of the case, holding and district" in fixing judicial rents. The Land Commission, in, collecting the prices of agricultural products and stock appear to have ignored the prices of items which are required for the production of those products and stock. It would be interesting to know why this is the case, and whether anything can be done to obtain these important additional figures,

  51
  both for each year of the period since 1881, and for each year in future. The cost of production is manifestly a "circumstance" of every "case, holding, and district," and so are the prices of agricultural products and stock. Under Section 8 of the Land Act of 1881 it would seem, therefore, that both these elements ought to be considered in fixing judicial rents. As to fair competition value, it is manifest that in almost every case, at the time when the tenancy was first created, the rental value of the holding in the local market, arising from the laws of supply and demand, must have been a "circumstance of the case, holding, and district," and would be found to be such a "circumstance" at any time afterwards if (1) the holding came back into the landlord's hands, or if (2) the tenant were selling his interest in the holding. In fixing a fair rent it would seem, therefore, to be the duty of the court to put a fair value on this market or competition value, and to give the benefit of it to the landlord. If this is done I wish to ask how it is shown or indicated in the Pink Schedule. On the other hand, if the element of competition is entirely excluded, it would seem to follow that the court fixes not a fair rent but a low rent, and thereby gives the sitting tenant the benefit of an occupation interest, which has been held to be illegal. I am informed that in a case, Markey v. Gosford, the Land Commission actually decided that competition value must be entirely left out of the account. If this is their general practice, it is very easy to account for the enormous reductions they make in rents. I should like to ask English and Scottish landlords what their rents would be if it was assumed that there was no demand for their lands. It seems to me that on such an assumption the fair rent should be simply whatever the sitting tenant might be pleased to fix for himself. In Ireland we have been legislated into something very like that position, and yet some people say there has been no confiscation.
  My Lords, this whole subject is, I know, highly technical, and not an easy one to present in an attractive form, but I bring it forward under a sense of justice and of public duty, and I appeal, not so much perhaps on behalf of wealthier
  52
  landlords in Ireland, but of those poorer ones who are being every day deprived of their properties and driven out of their homes. What we want to see is that these Land Acts are fairly and properly administered, and to know the grounds and reasons why rents are reduced. I can only add that, if these Acts were applied to England, public opinion would insist on their being administered in an intelligible manner. I do hope, my Lords, that we shall receive a satisfactory answer or answers from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, because if such answers do not seem satisfactory to us, I shall feel bound to ask your Lordships for a Committee of your Lordships' House to inquire into the matters which are contained in my questions. I beg now to ask His Majesty's Government the six questions which stand in my name on the Paper.
  LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, at this very late period of the evening I would certainly not trouble the House with any remarks, but as I brought practically the same question before the House last year, I rise just to express the hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench may be able to give us rather fuller information than he did on the previous occasion. My noble and learned friend, in reply to several questions I put to him, stated that the Land Commission did not agree with the Fry Commission, and therefore did not approve of these recommendations. But, my Lords, we should like to know, not only why they did not approve these recommendations, but as these recommendations were made in the Report of a very strong Commission in consequence of some defect in procedure or existing grievances, and also commend themselves to many people who have had great experience in the working of the Land Acts, we wish to know why, if they did not approve of these precise recommendations, they have not adopted any analogous regulations which might do away with the grievances which the Fry Commission deemed to exist.
  There are several points which I should like to bring before your Lordships, but it is far too late now to enter upon them. I will only mention one of the most important, and that is one that has been

  53
  alluded to by my noble friend, namely, the definition of fair rent. On the last occasion my noble and learned friend stated that the Land Commission were unable to accept the definition given by the Fry Commission, and he gave reasons for it based on the judgment of Sir James Meredith in a well-known case of Ripley v. Macnaghten, and also a judgment of Lord Justice Fitzgibbon on the ground, first, that the words "in the landlord's hands" were not in the Act of Parliament, and secondly, that it would be proceeding on a false assumption that it was in the landlord's hands, when the land must necessarily be in the hands of the occupying tenant. This answer created considerable perplexity in my mind at that time, and in the mind of everybody else to whom I have spoken since. If the position of the occupying tenant differs so much from that of the new tenant, it seems clear that the occupying tenant must hold and possess some right, interest, or title which the new tenant has not, and to the ordinary lay mind it is impossible to distinguish that from the occupation interest, which the Land Commission have pronounced to be illegal, and not to be taken into account in fixing a fair rent. I do hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to point out some distinction between these two things, and it is most important that this should be done, for, at the present time, everybody is surprised at the reductions of rent which are taking place, reductions which they think cannot be justified by any fall in prices, for the period of fifteen years from now would commence after the great fall in prices. There has been no great fall in the price of agricultural stock since the commencement of that period, and therefore they are of opinion that, in some shape or form, the occupation interest or something akin is still taken into account in fixing the rent. We do not ask these questions out of simple curiosity or from any desire to embarrass the Land Commission, but in the interests of all people concerned in the matter of Ireland. There are many people of small means who are losing the means of existence from the way their rents are pared down, and they do think that they have a right to have an account of the reasons for which this is done.
  THE EARL OF KILMOREY: I, like the noble and the learned Lord who has just sat down, will not venture to occupy your Lordships' attention for many minutes at this late hour, but I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to say a few words not only in support and in sympathy with the noble Duke in all he said in drawing the attention of the House to a state of affairs that could not possibly exist in any other part of His Majesty's dominions except Ireland, but because I am going to venture to introduce quite a new light on the argument, and that is, although I quite understand all the difficulties and complaints that arise with reference to the working of the Land Act of 1881, I go so far as to say why should not they be all removed by one perfectly clean sweep, namely, the repeal of the said Act. We all know that the noble and learned Lord who is going to answer these questions was not enamoured of that Act when it was brought in, and I remember the attitude that he took up at that time, and I hope the day is not far distant when we shall see him rejoicing at its decease and burial. The Act was brought forward at a time when the state of Ireland gave the Government of the day a great deal of anxiety. The circumstances were then exceptional, and therefore they led to legislation also of an exceptional character; but twenty years have elapsed, and the state of Ireland is not now what it was then. The object with which the Act was passed—namely, the fixing of fair rents—has practically been gained, and I may say that if a tenant has not been able to take advantage of the facilities of that Act to get his rent fixed fair in twenty years, he does not deserve any further consideration, and if the members of this Land Commission Court have not been able to complete their labours within twenty years, really I think I am justified in saying that they no longer deserve to put the country to the enormous expense which it at present has to bear through the constitution of this court. Perhaps your Lordships are not aware, though many us are, that it costs the country over £120,000 a year to keep that court going, and what for? Merely now to pare down rents that have been already pared down on a basis which, as the

  55
  late Lord Dundreary said, "no fellah can understand." I hope your Lordships will forgive me for intruding at this moment, and I hope that before long some intimation will be made that there will be some finality to an Act which was brought in in 1881, of which I believe one or more eminent statesmen declared that it was only a modus vivendi, having in their minds some still larger and more comprehensive scheme for facilitating the transfer of land from their tenants to the occupiers.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, no doubt what the noble Lord who has just sat down has said represents a very common idea, but I do not think it is a very practical one—that it would be very pleasant and satisfactory at once to bring in an Act of Parliament repealing the Act of 1881 and all similar legislation. That is not what I call a feasible or practical suggestion. I do not pretend for a moment that I have changed my views in respect of this legislation, but there is no doubt that the feeling of dislike and distaste of that legislation colours all the views which are entertained with reference to the Fry Commission, and therefore it leads to a critical and suspicious state of mind in reference to every speech that is made from this bench upon the matter.
  Now, my Lords, it is a curious fate that puts me, who have spoken so much against the Act of 1881 in another place, to have to answer questions in reference to this matter. I have never changed a single view that I ever expressed or receded from a single proposition that I ever uttered, but I have to look at the thing from the practical and reasonable standpoint. The legislation represents what is now the law of the land. It must be fairly administered, and we must apply our minds to understanding what is reasonable and what is proper in reference to all proposals made on the subject.
  With reference to the Fry Commission, this is "the fourth time of asking." I think it is the fourth time at this Table that I have been called upon to make speeches of more or less length in reference to the Fry Commission and its recommendations. Well, I am not going to repeat my speeches; there is nothing
  56
  so tiresome to an audience, and there is nothing so immensely tiresome to the speaker as to repeat his speeches all over again; but may I venture just to make this observation, which must always be made on these occasions, that we must remember that the Land Commission is not a Commission that is a mere Government Department that we can direct to take up and accept such and such proposals and reject others. For weal or for woe, it was given by the Act of 1881 the great powers of a Commission, powers which were independent of the Government. I am not defending that part of the Act, but we must take the Act as we find it. Parliament created the Land Commission, and gave to it great and independent powers.
  Then, what was the Fry Report? One would think from the way my noble friend spoke of it that it was some fetish to be worshipped—that it was a kind of Divine revelation, to be accepted as the teaching of a higher and superior wisdom. Well, that is unreasonable. The landowners themselves do not accept some of its most important proposals. There is no part of the Fry Commission that has applied itself more resolutely than that which seeks to show that the higher prices which are paid for tenant-right cannot be accepted as demonstrating that the rents have been unduly reduced. That is a sheet anchor of the landlords' argument. I do not say whether there is not a great deal in it; I have never said so, but the Fry Commission itself resolutely refused to accept it. Another point which the Fry Commission point out with extreme force is the very powerful argument against the large, and lavish, and indiscriminate appeals against the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners. That has been treated as mere idle talk and waste paper. It has had no effect on the number of appeals; they are just as largely and indiscriminately taken now as when, three years and a half ago, the Commission made its report. Appeals possibly are even more common now than they were at that time.
  Then, my Lords, what is the position of the Land Commissioners with reference to the matter? Are they supposed to take over every single recommendation of the Fry Commission in globo, and

  57
  treat it as a revelation? It is idle to suppose anything of the kind. The meaning of appointing a Royal Commission is that the selected men consider a thing and make such recommendations as commend themselves to their judgment. They make their recommendations, and you have to examine them and criticise them, and you only take those you approve of, and do not take those that you do not approve of. That is just what the Land Commission have done. They adopted, as I showed last year, twelve or fourteen recommendations. They applied their minds to them independently, and took those they approved of and rejected others which they thought required legislation or were not prudent or expedient; and there is no power to compel them to act against their considered and deliberate judgment of what they thought right and prudent, and in accordance with the Code that had been committed to their hands.
  Now, I have already on previous occasions given a sufficiently long statement of what has been done, and I do not propose to repeat that statement. A great deal of the information which the noble Duke asks for he obviously possesses himself already, because in a long list published by the Landowners' Convention, of which I think he is the president, they have threshed out this question, and anyone could see in that report what has been done and what has not been done, and what requires legislation and what does not. In fact, every single point on which I am interrogated may be found in that Report. I am now asked to explain what has been done since the 3rd May, 1899. I will give the list, very shortly, having regard to the hour. First, there is the examination and testing of drains by Appeal Court Valuers, by an order of 18th May, 1901. It was in a less complete state before that for some time. Secondly, there is a similar instruction for the information of assistant commissioners of the same date. Thirdly, the Fry Commissioners were extremely strong in pointing out the saving of time and expense there would be in carrying out purchases by fiats rather than by vesting orders. That has been effected in suitable cases by an Order of the 6th May, 1901. Then another matter that the Fry Commission attached
  58
  great weight to was this. They said that in many cases where the Land Commission should be satisfied it was unreasonable to require inspection, which involved great trouble and expense, that has been dispensed with, where it could be done, by an order of 17th May, 1901. An order of the same date also dispensed with the old and expensive statement of facts on the apportionment of superior interests. I have to deal with the matter in a technical form, but anyone will know who is conversant with the question that that effects a very substantial saving of time and expense in the administration of the Purchase Code. Then the Fry Commission pointed out that there was considerable delay and expense occasioned by distributing the purchase money through the machinery of a branch of the High Court rather than keeping it under the Land Commission. By a recent order the old practice is restored, and the purchase money is distributed by the Land Commission, and under the supervision of the Judicial Commission. I might say more upon that, but it would not be reasonable to detain your Lordships at this hour. Another point that the Fry Commission dwelt on very much was this. They urged that it was not reasonable to put the parties to the great expense of searching for original patents and getting extracts from them. That has been given up also by a recent regulation.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: "Original patents"?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Yes. They had to be searched for for certain purposes, when they came in as part of the title. It is more or less a technical matter, but it is one that the Commission attached considerable weight to. Now, I would be glad to be allowed to stop here, because I have practically answered all the important questions on the Paper. But, the noble Duke asked me what were the other recommendations of the Fry Commission that had not been adopted, and the reasons why they have not been adopted. He knows perfectly well the recommendations that have not been adopted; he has his own list of those that were adopted, and those that remain after eliminating these

  59
  comprise the list of recommendations not adopted. I have dealt with these very fully on former occasions, and I will only give a summary of a few of the more important, and that I am sure will satisfy the noble Duke. I do not think I do any injustice to his or my noble friend Lord Clonbrock's argument when I say that the principal thing they go upon is the Fry Commission definition of fair rent. It is obvious that that is the first thing in their minds, and not unnaturally so. Last year I went in great detail into this question, and I took some pains to make my meaning perfectly clear. I quoted from Judge Meredith. I gave the reference to the case of Markey v. Gosford, and to another case in the Court of Appeal, and I quoted Lord Justice Fitzgibbon's decision that the words "in the landlord's hands" implied an assumption contrary to the fact, and I pointed out that, that being so, that being the judicial interpretation given to the racommendation of the Fry Commission, it appeared to me that unless legislation came in it would not be possible to apply universally the definition of the Fry Commission. I would point out this—as I have often done before—and then I will leave the subject. The Act of 1881 did not attempt to define "fair rent." It said that the Land Commission should have regard to the property of the landlord and of the tenant and to "the circumstances of the case, holding, and district." It did not go an inch further. It selected the Commission and left them at large. And, although the question has come up before Parliament many times since in amending Acts, nobody in either House of Parliament has ever yet suggested a form that could be put into an Act of Parliament as a definition of "fair rent."
  THE EARL OF MAYO: It came up first in 1887.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: What I am anxious to press on my noble friend is that if that definition is not accepted some other definition should be laid down; because surely, there must be some definition—unless we are going to assume that nothing "fair" can be done under the old Act at all.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: The way Parliament left it under the Act of 1881 (I am not concerned to defend the Act at all) was that the "fair rent" should be found, having regard to "the circumstances of the case, holding, and district." That was the guidance of Parliament, and its sole guidance, and my point is this, that, although that has come up before Parliament some four or five times for revision and amendment, on not a single occasion has any attempt been made, either in this House or in the House of Commons, to suggest anything that can be called a definition of "fair rent."
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I remember its being well argued in 1870, under the first Land Commission.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: That only supports my point, because that was eleven years before the Act of 1881. You have in the Act of 1881 a deliberate abstention from giving anything approaching a definition of "fair rent"—you have no guidance except the words I have quoted. I do not desire to dwell on that subject. I have shown by reference to judicial decisions that the recommendations of the Fry Commission have been rejected as inapplicable and unacceptable as a definition, and it would therefore appear that legislation would be required to make the definition applicable to all cases.
  Then I pass on to another point. I am asked as to the recommendations of the Fry Commission, "That more detailed instructions should be given to sub-commissioners to guide them on difficult questions and to remove the prevailing diversity of opinion and of practice." Well, we cannot interfere with a judicial discretion, but I may make this general remark. When the Fry Commission made that recommendation they pointed out that on certain matters of capital importance the sub-commissioners were left without guidance. That cannot be said now. Since the Commission reported there have been decisions on many of the points mentioned by the Commission, and each one of those decisions is brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioners, and thus they have guidance from

  61
  decisions of the very highest authority on all matters upon which the Fry Commission said it would be wise to give them instructions, such as occupation, interest, improvability of the soil, true value, competition value, and so on. Then it is said that all the Assistant Commissioners and court valuers should be permanent. I do not think I need discuss that. I think it is now conceded that that is not a proposition that can be entertained. Then it is said that in fixing the fair rent of a second term the first proceedings shall be considered. So they are. Then it is said that the Pink Schedule should have more matters introduced into it. I do not agree with my noble friends about the Pink Schedule, but it was their creation. In 1896 they insisted upon the Pink Schedule, so that there could be no escaping from it. In my opinion, even then the Pink Schedule was an enormously heavy business; it was loaded with a mass of detail and information, and now the suggestion is made, following some of the suggestions of the Fry Commission—but not all of them—that other additions should be made. I believe the Land Commission are of opinion that the Pink Schedule is already seriously overloaded, and that it would be most unwise, in the interests of reasonable and practical administration, to seek to go into any more topics. I could give other reasons for that, but it would take a considerable time.
  I apprehend, from an interruption made last year, that I need not go into the suggestion that where a farm is shown to be deteriorated the Land Commission do not act with fairness and independence, and refuse to take up the question at all while the farm is in that bad state. I was stopped last year, but I am prepared to show that the Land Commission, when a farm is in a state of deterioration, at once adjourn the hearing and take very drastic measures. I dealt last year with the statement about the valuers being a separate and independent body, and I also dealt with the further point that the Assistant Commissioners should be ignorant of what had been done by the original Commissioners; that was fully gone into by Lord Justice Fitzgibbon,
  62
  a very able colleague of mine in the Court of Appeal. I never could under stand the possibility of maintaining that suggestion. The idea that when a man is sitting down to find out a thing, you should tie a cloak over his eyes, and say that he is not to know what everyone in the court knows, strikes me as simply fantastic.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I may remind my noble friend that it is done under the Agricultural Holdings Act in England; it is expressly provided in that Act.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I do not believe in it myself, but I will not pursue that matter further. My noble friend referred to prices. I have had sent to me a volume—a painfully large volume—of prices, and I am told that these prices are circulated most carefully, and that every possible means is taken to enable people to know all the prices. I believe, also, that the proper time for taking those prices, and the cost of production, into account is when you are examining a holding with a view to measuring its fair rent. Everything is done to give information, and prices and cost of production may, of course, vary with each holding. Then the last question is (with the supplement that my noble friend has furnished me with privately) one that would terrify a man who had not a reasonable amount of courage and a considerable experience in dealing with this class of question. It is—
  "Whether, in determining the fair rent of a holding. … there are any (and, if so, what) 'circumstances of the case, holding, and district' (other than that specified in Section 8, Sub-section 10) which the Land Commission do not take into account; and what are their reasons for refusing to take same into account."
  I should think they took everything into account. I have no means of cross-examining the Land Commissioners on the views they take of their functions and, with reference to the detailed memorandum handed to me by the noble Duke, I cannot answer those questions at all; but I say that the law on these subjects has been authoritatively ascertained by legal decisions open to everyone, five of which I have already referred to, and all have access to those decisions. If I occupied more

  63
  time with attempting to read and explain judgments I should simply weary your Lordships. Upon practically every topic that is referred to judicial decisions have been pronounced, some of them by the Court of Appeal, some by the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission, and everybody can ascertain the law by the simplest reference to those extremely well-known decisions.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I find myself for the second time in the position of having to answer the noble and learned Lord. His speech to-night is I may say, without saying anything rude I hope, practically a repetition of what we heard on the last occasion. The differences are very small and very slight. He said that the matters that had been dealt with by the Land Commission on the recommendation of the Fry Commission were only technical. They were so technical that they required explanation at the hands of one of the best lawyers we have ever seen in dealing with the Land question. The only important new statement the noble and learned Lord made was this, that the value and interest of the landlord and tenant were taken into consideration. Well, my Lords, the noble and learned Lord's statement, that he hates the Act of 1881—
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I do not think I said I hated it; I am not a lover of it.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Well, not to love a thing is much the same as to say that one hates the thing. But I may say that I pity the noble and learned Lord, with the knowledge that he has got, to have to stand up here and defend it, and defend it after the finding of the Fry Commission. I quite agree with him that it is quite impossible without legislation to deal with a great many of the questions that the Fry Commission recommended should be dealt with. But the answers of the noble and learned Lord are not satisfactory. The first question I think I have dealt with; he said that these were only technical things. They are very small things, and he mentioned one of them with regard to the Purchase Code. Now the noble Duke in the course of his speech said nothing about the Purchase Code.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I was asked what changes were made in deference to the Fry Commission, and all the changes I mentioned were made in deference to that Commission.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I apologise to the noble Lord; I missed that explanation. So much, then, with regard to the first question. The noble and learned Lord then referred to the search for patents or titles. That is a very small question.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: It may be very expensive.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: It is very expensive, we know, but if the specification of title were made easy and less expensive, it would be much better. Then the noble and learned Lord said broadly that without fresh legislation there could be no definition of fair rent. That is a very thorny subject, and it has been threshed out over and over again. If the noble and learned Lord says that there cannot be a definition of fair rent without legislation we must accept that, but all the legal luminaries in Ireland were gathered together to furnish a definition of fair rent, and no proper decision was arrived at.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I dealt with that in my speech.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I would remind the noble Lord that the rules of debate do not allow of a running dialogue between two noble Lords.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: To conclude my observations, I am of opinion that the answer of His Majesty's Government was unsatisfactory, and the noble Duke who put the question will no doubt give notice that he will move for a Committee of your Lordships to report on the points referred to in the questions he put to-day.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I beg to give notice that the reply of His Majesty's Government being unsatisfactory, and I will on Thursday next, the 18th instant, move for the appointment

  65
  of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to inquire into and report on the several matters comprised in the questions which I have put to His Majesty's Government on this subject.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight of the clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.