My Lords, before we absolutely part from this Bill I should like to make a few observations in regard to the history of it, both before its arrival in this House and during its passage through this House. I venture to think that your Lordships' House has grave reason to complain of the whole course of action taken in regard to this measure by His Majesty's Government. It was first, I think, put forward mainly to get rid of the alleged grievance resulting from the undue holding up of land supposed to be ripe for building. But it contained a very great deal which went far beyond what was necessary for achieving that, in my humble opinion, laudable object. I am satisfied in my own mind—I cannot, of course, state it with absolute certainty, but that is how it looks according to the evidence—that the underlying object m the minds, at any rate, of some members of His Majesty's Government was either to commit this House to the acceptance of very far-reaching principles in the matter of reform of taxation, or else to use the rejection of this Bill as a counter in the game of agitation against your Lordships' House, an agitation which had somewhat more prominence given to it last year than during the present year. I venture to say that the whole subject of local taxation, and in that I include our whole system of taxation upon land, is one which is second to none in importance; but it is a most intricate and difficult subject and demanded most careful and almost judicial treatment. But from the first, from the moment when the Bill was introduced, members of His Majesty's Government spoke with very different voices in regard to the objects that were being aimed at. As at first introduced, it was, in my humble opinion, one of the most crude and ill-considered Bills that have ever been thrown on the Table of either House of Parliament. It was amended, with very inadequate discussion, during its passage through the other House in the small hours of the morning, and it reached this House last year in the concluding hours of the session. Your Lordships, under the guidance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Robertson, refused to accept the Second Reading of the Bill last year; and, in my humble opinion, the House was amply justified in taking that course. That was not, at any rate, the view last year of the late Prime Minister, because, in addressing a meeting of his supporters on 5th October in Edinburgh, he placed this Bill and the Small Holdings Bill in the very forefront of the effort to raise an outcry against the constitutional exercise by this House of its legislative functions. The words of the late Prime Minister, speaking in October, were these—

"The Land Values Bill, which did no more than throw upon the local authorities the simple duty of valuing the land apart from the buildings upon its surface, was incontinently rejected, and I say this rejection was a piece of arrogance and high-handedness which marks the extreme pretensions of the House of Lords."

That was at the commencement of the autumn campaign. Whether that agitation realised all the anticipations of noble Lords opposite is a matter for them to consider; but on 12th February this year the Prime Minister had rather changed his view. Speaking then in the House of Commons he said—

"It is to gratify Lord Lansdowne's view that there was no precedent for passing such a Bill within twenty-four hours of the Prorogation, which I admit is a reasonable one, that we re-introduce both of these Bills in the earliest days of the session."

If our action last year having regard to the circumstances under which it was taken was reasonable, it would have been more dignified—I think, also, more wiseo—to have said so in October at Edinburgh rather than have waited till the end of the agitation. The Bill came back to your Lordships in exactly the same form as that in which this House rejected it last year; but in the meantime, in the course of the agitation which was pursued in the recess against this House, the Bill was held up in the country as an enormous reform, as a great alteration of the whole basis on which local taxation was to be imposed; and it was promised over and over again in definite words, by more than one member of the Government that all the rates were to go upon the land as valued under the provisions of this Bill. The provisions of this Bill for valuing land a e in my humble opinion, open to a good deal of the animadversion which was passed upon them by Lord Stanley of Alderley, who spoke upon the Report stage; and I venture to say that the idea of putting all the rates in Scotland, both of the owner and the occupier — that was stated in terms—upon land values as defined by this Bill could only be adequately described, as it was described by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the moment his attention was called to it, as—

"the most unmitigated nonsense."

It is because of these very different versions of the Bill that I think this House has grave reason to complain of the course which has been taken in regard to it. There remains the point of the substitution of capital value for annual value as the basis of valuation and of subsequent taxation. No one can deny that that is a wholly new idea; nor can it be denied that, so far as our existing system of valuation is concerned, it is an absolute revolution. I will not labour this point. But in England, from the time of the Act of Elizabeth, the criterion of valuation was what the hypothetical tenant would give, and in Scotland tin; annual rent, if that annual rent was fixed for not more than twenty-one years; and in both these cases the object in view was to test, however roughly, the ability of those interested in the subject to be rated. I put it to the House, and I state fearlessly that there has never been any adequate discussion, either in Parliament or in the country, by a Commission or other form of inquiry, in which this proposal to substitute capital for annual value has been threshed out in all its bearings; and I venture most respectfully, but as strongly as I can, to say that capital value cannot possibly afford any such criterion of the ability of the owner to bear taxation. If it is the case that the land can be let with a covenant for immediate building, it is immaterial which basis is chosen; but it land which is not ripe for immediate building and has only a prospective value were to be rated on capital value it would not only mean an immensely heavier burden, but it would very soon have the effect of rating all the value out of the subject altogether. Capital value, however you ascertain it, and a percentage taken upon it, would give, and must give, a result far in excess of the real annual value. I should have thought it was a commonplace in economical discussion that taxation which falls on capital in the strict sense must, diminish the sum of the community's wealth, and that if you use capital value of property as the basis of taxation you cannot avoid trenching on the accumulated resources of the nation; and I suggest, as a second difficulty, that capital value is not really a fair test as between owner and owner, because some forms of capital give to the owner a much lower return than other forms. If you are to gauge for local purposes fairly, as between men and man, his ability to bear taxation, you must do it mainly on what he puts into his pocket and not on what it is supposed he owns. You have relieved—and, as I think, rightly relieved—personal property and stock - in - trade from local rates; but if you have relieved that form of capital value, surely it is an aggravation of the injustice to rate land on its capital value and to rate it alone amongst all the subjects which are now liable to rating. I certainly acquit those members of His Majesty's Government who have spoken for themselves in this House of any complicity with the doctrines of the late Mr. Henry George, but beyond all question some friends of the Government accept, those principles and have avowed their intention of rating and taxing landlords out of existence. I venture to say that if we had accepted this Bill as it was brought to this House it would have been pleaded against us, with more less force, that we had in fact gone some way in accepting those doctrines. What is the use of ascertaining capital value if you are not going to rate, upon it? If you are going to rate upon it you are accepting those principles, while if you are not going to rate upon it you are putting a great burden upon the local authorities to ascertain that which is to be turned to no real account. Rating on capital value would be one of the surest means of affording the opportunity to those to whom I have alluded of carrying out their object. I venture to say that if we are to go forward on this path, if we are ever to change the basis of local rating from annual to capital value, it should be done only after the fullest, fairest, and frankest discussion, and on the responsibility of the Government as a whole, speaking with one voice, after taking Parliament fairly and fully into their confidence and after laying the whole of their scheme before Parliament. An endeavour should not be made in this fragmentary form to commit us to principles which, in my opinion, would be most mischievous, and would aggravate any injustice and unfairness in the system of local taxation as it exists at the present time.

My Lords, your Lordships might think it disrespectful on my part to the noble Lord who has just spoken if I said nothing in answer to his criticisms, and I should be very sorry to be thought to show him any disrespect. But I think I should lie regarded as tedious if I were to enter again into the subject of capital as against annual value. The Bill has been discussed at every stage during two successive years, and I think we have got about as far as we can get. I hope, therefore, I may be excused if I observe some brevity. The noble Lord again seems to think that I rest my defence of this Bill solely on the ground that some land is held up. I will not say more than this, that I have repeatedly disclaimed that restriction. The second point which the noble Lord made was that rating ought not to be upon capital value but upon annual value. In one sense the two things may be the same. As my noble friend Lord Crewe has pointed out, you can always ascertain the capital value by multiplying the annual value by so many years purchase. Similarly you can always deduce from the capital value what the annual value would be by assuming that a certain percentage fairly represents a proper percentage on the capital. If you give me the true value, that which would be given in the open market to-morrow, I do not care whether it is put in the form of capital or annual value. Therefore it is, if I may say so, to elude the whole point of the distinction to dwell simply upon the difference between capital and annual value. The annual value as we now know it represents the annual value of the use. The use governs the value, and that is what I think is unfair to the other ratepayers. The noble Lord had two apprehensions. He seemed to think that the Bill constituted an attempt to induce this House in some subtle way, without knowing it, to assent to the principles of the late Mr. Henry George. My Lords, we should be bold men indeed, if we thought we could make any approach towards the principles of Henry George by any amount of persuasion in your Lordships' House. For my part I have no sympathy at all—I have already expressed my view—with the doctrine of transferring all rates to the land. Then the noble Lord seemed to think we were animated by another motive—that of finding some ammunition for the purpose of fighting your Lordships' House on this Bill. I may say, frankly, that I think this Government has not been very handsomely treated by your Lordships' House; but, at the same time, is it not possible to suppose that the public interest and the desire to remedy a grievance, the existence of which has been admitted by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in the course of these debates, may have had something to do with the introduction of this Bill? The real truth is that the Bill imposes no taxation whatever. It is a Bill which proposes to have a valuation of site value as opposed to that of the buildings upon it, and the Amendment which was supported by the whole of your Lordships on the Opposition side of the House accepted that principle. After all, His Majesty's Government represent the people of this country for the time being, however unworthily, and is it not fair—I hope your Lordships will excuse a certain amount of frankness on my part on this subject—is it not fair that you should look at our Bills and assume that it is just possible that we may have some fair object in view and not an ulterior one? We feel that we are not credited with having any good intention in regard to legislation that we bring forward in your Lordships' House; but I will say no more about it. We have had enough discussion already upon this Bill to show that the subject is of itself extremely difficult and complicated. No one knows that better than the noble Lord himself, for he was the chairman of the Royal Commission which investigated the matter. Judging from the inexplicable criticisms that I see in the newspapers and also, if I may say so, that I hear in debate, I think that the subject has not yet been thought out by a good many people who oppose it. What is at the bottom of this Bill is fair play to all the ratepayers and not robbery of anybody. The Amendments your Lordships have introduced are such as I am afraid make the Bill one which cannot possibly work if passed, and which has very little prospect of passing at all. All we can do is to put forward our proposals, and if they are rejected by your Lordship's House to commend them to the sense of the country.

My, Lords, the object of this Bill, briefly, is to ensure that representatives of the Press shall be allowed to attend meetings of local authorities unless such attendance is contrary to the public interest in a particular instance. The Bill comes up from another place, where one or two small objections that were made to its provisions were met by those who drafted it; and I am informed that the only alterations suggested by the County Councils Association and the Municipal Corporations Association were agreed to and embodied in the Bill. The Bill, therefore, left another place, I think I may say, practically an agreed measure. Reporters have attended meetings of local authorities hitherto practically without exception; but in the case of the Tenby Corporation and Mason a decision was given, which I have no doubt was perfectly correct in law, but which Came as a great surprise to everybody having experience in this matter. That decision lays it down that the Press attend all meetings of local authorities practically on sufferance. The decision, I understand, really goes a great deal further than that, because it lays down not only that the Press attend meetings of local authorities on sufferance, but that individual members of the Press also attend such meetings on sufferance. That is to say that if a representative of a particular paper or the particular representative of a paper is in any way objectionable to the majority of the local authority, it is within their power absolutely to exclude him. Obviously the particular reporter or newspaper which the majority would object to most would be the reporter or newspaper representing the views of the minority; and therefore, if this recent decision were carried to its logical conclusion, it would be in the power of every local authority to get rid of its most active critic, and, in fact, absolutely to silence all criticism reaching the eyes and ears of the public. I submit to your Lordships that it is not at all desirable that such a state of things should be allowed to continue, and that it is in the public interest that publicity should be secured in all cases without question. There are legislative precedents for a proposal such as this, though the most important precedent that I am able to quote goes a great deal further than we desire to go in the present Bill. In Ireland, by Clause 15 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1902, it is absolutely impossible to exclude representatives of the Press without the assent of the Local Government Board. No resolution of any council or board to exclude from its meetings the representatives of the Press is valid without the sanction of the Local Government Board. We do not suggest anything so drastic in this Bill. There is another indirect legislative precedent which, I think, should be quoted. I am informed that the Law of Libel (Amendment) Act, 1888, provides that a fair and accurate report published in any newspaper of the proceedings of a local authority shall be privileged unless actual malice is proved. I think, therefore, it was undoubtedly in the mind of the Legislature that the meetings of local authorities should be open to the public. But I do not desire to recommend this Bill to your Lordships' acceptance solely on the ground of narrow legislative precedents. I claim rather that it is obviously wise that publicity should obtain at all meetings of local authorities. Their duties are being increased every day, and public interest in their doings is at the same time also extending. They control vast expenditure, almost as large as, if not greater than, that which Parliament itself controls. For one hundred years Parliament has insisted on the publicity of its proceedings, and I think he would be a very bold Leader of your Lordships' House or of the other House who would suggest that one of the Houses of Parliament should sit in camera. It is practically established now, by custom, that the proceedings of Parliament are public, and I see no reason whoa similar provision should not be extended to local parliaments. That is really the case for the Bill. The Bill, as I say, does nothing more than establish what everybody believed to be the law until very recently, and, what I believe is absolutely desirable in the public interest. I stated just now that the Bill does not go as far as the Irish precedent which I quoted, and a perusal of the first clause of the Bill will show that this is so. Clause 1 states that—

"Representatives of the Press shall be admitted to the meetings of every local authority."

But it gives power to a local authority to exclude temporarily such representatives from the meeting when, in the opinion of a majority of the members, it is desirable to do so in view of the special nature of the business. Your Lordships will have noticed that in Ireland we are unable to exclude the Press without going to the Local Government Board. Under the provisions of this Bill, which applies to England, Scotland, and Wales, it will be possible to exclude representatives of the Press whenever, in the opinion of a majority of the members of the local authority, it is desirable to do so in view of the particular business to be discussed. The Bill, as originally drawn, provided that it should be necessary to have a majority of two-thirds of the members present at the meeting in order to put this power in force; but the representatives of the County Councils Association and the Municipal Corporations Association desired that this should be reduced to a bare majority, and the promoters of the Bill met that suggestion. I am informed that this was the only suggestion for an amendment of the Bill that was made by those authorities during its passage through the House of Commons. The second subsection of Clause 1 enacts that any local authority may make regulations as to the accommodation to be provided for representatives of the Press, and the manner in which the same is to be allotted. The reason for that, I think, is to meet particularly the case of the London County Council. It is felt that the London County Council may not have accommodation for all the representatives of the Press who may desire to attend, and therefore power is given to make regulations in order to deal with the accommodation in the hands of the council. Words are inserted at the end of the subsection to the effect that the representatives of a particular newspaper are not to be excluded because of its opinions, or on the ground of any reports or comments published by such newspaper or through the agency of such representatives, this provision being necessary in view of what happened in the Tenby case. It is obviously a fair safeguard that there should be an appeal on the part of any newspaper that feels aggrieved as the result of any procedure under these regulations, and that power of appeal is given in subsection (3) of Clause 1. Subsection (4) is consequential. Clause 2 deals with definitions. I would characterise them generally by saying that their principle is that all authorities which have spending powers are brought within the provisions of the Bill. There is one exception—Education Committees. I think your Lordships will agree that since the Act of 1902 the Education Committee is in a very special meetings. Committee meetings are in no way interfered with. They will continue, as now, closed to the public, but there is nothing to prevent them sitting in public if they desire to do so. The fifth clause contains the application of the Bill to Scotland, and Clause 6 exempts it from extending to Ireland, where, as I have informed your Lordships, more stringent provisions are already in force. I believe the Bill to be necessary in the public interest, and I trust your Lordships will be willing to read it a Second Time.

My Lords, I merely rise to intimate that His Majesty's Government support this Bill. I do not think it is necessary that I should say anything further, as the noble Earl has gone fully through the various Clauses and explained them to your Lordships as far as explanation was necessary. I quite agree with all that has been said by the noble Earl, and I have to state, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they are of opinion that publicity should be given to all local affairs. Increased public interest is now taken in the work of the local authorities, and it is only fair that full reports of the meetings of those authorities should be available to the ratepayers and those who are concerned with the administration of local business. This Bill was originally introduced, as Lord Donoughmore has explained, in consequence of a decision of the Courts in the case of the Tenby Corporation and Mason, and, at the instance of the Local Government Board, who have looked very carefully into the Bill, it has been amended in Committee in another place in several particulars. The Local Government Board desire to support the Bill as amended.

My Lords, I am not acquainted with the history of this Bill in another place, and I merely take it as it is presented to your Lordships. It is a Bill to provide for the admission of representatives of the Press to the meetings of all local authorities, and it gives the Press practically an absolute right to be present at every meeting of a local authority which has spending powers, to adopt the short description given by the noble Earl in moving the Bill. We are all in favour of publicity; but has there been any want of publicity hitherto? We are all in favour of publicity being given, for instance, to the proceedings of this House, but I am not aware of any law giving the Press the right to come here. The third subsection of Clause 1 provides that if any representative of the Press feels aggrieved by the accommodation provided for him he may appeal to the Local Government Board. Take the case of the official reporter in your Lordships' House. If he represented the Press and were to object to his accommodation, is he to have a right to appeal to the Local Government Board to find for him a seat which will suit his convenience better than that which is provided for him by this House? Surely, in a matter of this sort we may trust the local authorities. I am sure your Lordships will be of opinion that legislation is not only undesirable, but absolutely harmful, unless it is necessary. Now, where is the necessity for this Bill? The noble Lord has indicated none. It seems that in some particular case the representative of a particular paper was excluded. He went to law, and found that he had no absolute right to be present. We do not know all the circumstances under which this gentleman may have been excluded. But why are we to assume that in this particular case the local authority was wrong and the representative of the Press in the right? Why should we make a law saving that in all circumstances this gentleman or any representative of the Press is to have a right to be present? The Bill, in the first subsection of Clause 1, provides that—

"Representatives of the Press shall be admitted to the meetings of every local authority."

In the first place, who are the Press? The fourth subsection of Clause 1 states that—

"On receiving a written request from the Editor or the local representative of any newspaper, the clerk or other responsible officer shall send due notice of the meetings of the local authority to the office of such newspaper or to such local representative."

Therefore, I suppose that by the Press the Bill means any representative of any newspaper whatsoever. There is nothing to define who the Press are. I do not see that any special necessity has been proved why a representative of the Press should have a law made in his favour any more than other members of the public. According to subsection (1) representatives of the Press are to be admitted to the meetings of every local authority, but, on the other hand, the local authority is empowered to—

"temporarily exclude such representatives."

What does "temporarily" mean? Whenever they choose, I suppose. If that be so, the proviso contradicts the beginning of the clause. When you come to subsection (2) you find that any local authority may make regulations as to the accommodation to be provided for representatives of the Press. I apprehend that that means that they are to make regulations for accommodating the Press. Then it is provided, as I have said, that—

"If any representative of the Press feels aggrieved by any such regulations made as aforesaid, he may appeal to the Local Government Board, and the Board may order such local authority as aforesaid to vary or alter such regulations …"

Has not the Local Government Board enough to do as it is without going into these small matters? The provision which I have read, that on receiving a written request from the editor or local representative of any newspaper the clerk or other responsible officer shall send due notice of meetings of the local authority, means that if anybody starts a newspaper—it does not matter what circulation it has, or whether it has any circulation—he has merely to write to the clerk of the authority, and this official is required by the Bill to send due notice to all the meetings of the local authority. I venture to submit that the Bill has not been thoroughly considered. I suppose it is a private Member's Bill, though I was very sorry to hear my noble friend opposite say that the Government approved of it. My attention was not directed to the Bill until it was too late to give notice of an Amendment on the Second Reading; but, if your Lordships support me, I shall move the adjournment of the debate with the intention, when it is resumed, of moving that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.

My Lords, as the noble Earl in his opening remarks referred to the County Councils Association. I think it would be as well that I should explain exactly what their position is with regard to this Bill. As far as my own view and that of the Association are concerned, the Bill is wholly unnecessary. Every county council, I believe, admits the Press under proper regulations, and has the power which this Bill properly gives of excluding the Press when there is any matter to be discussed which it is not desirable should be published in the newspapers. That being the case the County Councils Association took the view that, as long as the provisions of the Bill were brought into conformity with the present practice of the county councils, they would not oppose it. As my noble friend Lord Donoughmore said, the first clause of the Bill was altered in conformity with amendments moved on behalf of the County Councils Association. We thought that a county council should have power to exclude the Press by an ordinary vote, and that it was absurd to bring in a two-thirds majority on a matter of this kind. There is one provision in the Bill of which we do not approve—that contained in subsection (3) of Clause 1, which says that if any representative of the Press feels aggrieved by the regulations which are made by a county council for the accommodation of the Press he may appeal to the Local Government Board. That, I think, is wholly unnecessary, and certainly the words that succeed that provision are wholly unsuitable. The local authority are not to be consulted and asked their views; but the Local Government Board may—

"Order such local authority as aforesaid to vary or alter such regulations in such a manner as they may think fit, and no regulations in so far as they are so varied or altered shall be subsequently varied or rescinded by the local authority without the consent of the Board."

Is it not a little too much in the direction of centralisation for the Local Government Board to step in and tell a county conucil or a small authority at the other end of England what arrangements they should make for the accommodation of the Press? The Board cannot know the accommodation available in the place of meeting, and if it is going to busy itself with these small details, it will soon overburden itself. If the Bill receives a Second Reading I shall move, either that the subsection be left out altogether, or that it be considerably amended. It seems also rather strong that the clerk of the county council should be ordered by statute to send notices of all meetings to any newspaper anywhere in the kingdom who chooses to apply for them. It would be impossible for that subsection to be carried out if an attempt were made to enforce it unreasonably. As far as I know this is the first time that there has been a differentiation between the Press and the public. Hitherto if the public were excluded the Press went out with them, and it is a new departure to legislate specially for the Press and to exclude all reference to the public. I do not wish to oppose the Bill, but I Certainly shall oppose it if subsection (3) is retained.

My Lords, this Bill may ultimately have the beneficial effects which my noble friend hopes, but, as far as I am concerned, I fail to see that it will make any practical change. The object of the Bill is presumably to force on a recalcitrant local authority the presence of any gentleman representing the Press who wishes to attend the meetings; but in subsection (1) it is provided that any local authority may temporarily exclude any such representative if it considers it advisable in the public interest. Surely it follows that any local authority which objected to the presence of reporters would inevitably contend that it was contrary to the public interest that they should be present. Therefore how do you improve the position by passing the Bill in its present form?

MY Lords, I only rise to emphasise the point which was so well put by Lord Camperdown and Lord Belper with regard to subsection (4) of Clause 1. I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will see that it is impossible that the House should deliberately put on the clerks to the local authorities the enormous duty of supplying newspapers with notices of meetings. Not merely are the meetings of the authority referred to, but also those of the committees to be sent to the newspapers, and I think we ought to hesitate before placing such a duty upon these officials in this light manner. Personally I cannot see what the object of the Bill is. I have been a member of a local board in London, and there has never been any question of the Press being admitted. I see no rational reason for the Bill, but I see many reasons why we should change subsection (4) and other subsections.

My Lords, I think it will be quite clear to my noble friend in charge of the Bill that a good many points will have to be considered if the House should decide to go into Committee on the Bill. As far as my own opinion is concerned, I think the Bill is right in principle, because there has been a legal decision that the Press are not entitled to admission, and I think there is every reason for due publicity of the proceedings of local bodies such as are named in the Bill. But, on the other hand, while the Bill takes very good care to provide for that, it does nothing whatever to provide for what I am afraid is very possible—misconduct on the part of the Press. Your Lordships have heard, and some may have had experience, of cases in which representatives of the Press have asked for an interview, and on being denied an interview have promptly proceeded to invent one for the benefit of their newspaper. I can recall several cases during the time I was responsible for Irish administration in which meetings which had never taken place at all were reported at full length. I am afraid that in these days of what is called newspaper enterprise we must consider that some newspapers, at all events, may be capable of abusing the privilege granted to them. What is the position in such a case that this Bill would establish? Under subsection (2) of Clause 1—

"No. … regulations shall enable.… local authorities to exclude the representatives of any newspaper on the ground of its opinions, or on the ground of any reports or comments published by such newspaper or through the agency of such representatives."

I should be very sorry to exclude any representative on the ground of the opinions of his paper or of its comments on the proceedings of the local authority; but if a newspaper deliberately reports the proceedings falsely or publishes documents that should be confidential, there ought to be some punishment in the form of the exclusion of such representative in the future. I hope that His Majesty's Government, who support the principle of the Bill, will be prepared to deal with that point in Committee if the Bill proceeds.

My Lords, I hope the House will agree to read the Bill a second time. I quite admit that there may be points that will require careful consideration in Committee. As regards what Lord Newton said as to the object of the Bill being nullified by the provision in subsection 1 of Clause 1 in regard to temporary exclusion, I think if the noble Lord will look at that again he will see that it has to be rather a solemn and formal performance in respect of a particular subject, and it would be impossible to suppose that under that all representatives of the Press could be permanently and every day excluded from the meetings of the local authority. I think the real necessity for the measure consists in the fact of the recent legal decision. It is a very serious matter that it should be laid down by the Courts of Law that all the proceedings of all local bodies can, if so desired, be carried on in camera; and on that ground we certainly support the principle of the Bill. As to the provision relating to the issue of notices, that might very properly, in my opinion, be submitted to some consideration. It seems to me to be rather loosely drawn, and I have no doubt that the noble Earl opposite will consider that point. So far as the county councils are concerned, I very much doubt whether ally measure of this kind is necessary at all, but there are far more numerous local authorities where I can understand that some difficulty might arise.

My Lords, I hope we shall not be misled by the continuous repetition of the necessity for publicity. What do we mean by publicity? Lord St. Aldwyn has told us that the admission of the Press very often leads to misrepresentation. Is misrepresentation publicity? If you want to secure publicity by law, then you must have official reporters who are responsible to some authority. It is no use admitting the Press; everybody knows perfectly well the result of that where local authorities are concerned. Discussions by local authorities are not generally of wide interest, and the result is that they are very sparsely reported unless somebody forgets himself and says something that he ought not to say. That never happens in county councils, but sometimes in municipal borough councils one of the hon. members calls another hon. member a liar and there is a row. That is reported at the greatest length, and that is the value of publicity. I think that it is a most monstrous thing that we should be asked in this country for the first time—we are told that it is so in Ireland, but Ireland is not, I hope, a precedent for us in this country in all things—to give the Press legal recognition and authority to be present at all meetings. I entirely agree with what was said by Lord Belper. If you wish to do this at all, do it by insisting that the public should be admitted. This is the first time, as far as I know, that it has been proposed to give the Press a legal standing in this country. The Bill goes very much further than some noble Lords seem to think; it establishes a very dangerous principle and is a measure that is not required. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Camperdown intends to press his Amendment, but I hope that, at any rate, it be open to us, if we please, to take the opinion of the House on going into Committee, if we do not take it at an earlier stage.

In the circumstances I think it would be more convenient if I did not press my Motion; but, of course, it will be quite competent for me, or for any other Peer, to take such course as may seem desirable with regard to this Bill at a later stage.

Will your Lordships allow me to make three further Amendments in Clause 2 of this Bill? They do not introduce anything new, but it has been pointed out to me by an eminent Colonial authority that doubt might arise as to the way in which the provision in the Bill should be carried out. The object of the Amendments is to secure that certain Judges of Courts in British Possessions may act as assessors of the Judicial Committee if they are Privy Councillors and if His Majesty in Council so directs, but that their number shall not exceed two at any one time. This is merely a Departmental matter; and I hope your Lordships will agree to the Amendments.

My Lords, this Bill has been introduced by the Government to enable markets to be established in rural districts by rural district councils. It is a very short Bill, and I do not think it requires very much explanation. It has been brought in to a large extent in consequence of representations which have been repeatedly made to the Local Government Board by the Board of Agriculture and others interested in the agricultural districts. Under Clause 166 of the Public Health Act of 1875 town councils and urban district councils are given power to provide a market place, construct a market house, acquire land and levy tolls for carrying on the market in their area. The town council can only do that by a vote of two-thirds of their number, and the urban district council must get the consent of the owners and ratepayers of the district before the market can be instituted. Rural district councils, however, have no direct powers for providing and carrying on markets, although Section 276 of the Public Health Act enables the Local Government Board to invest a rural district council with all, or any, of the powers which an urban district council now enjoys. The Board, however, have been advised that the provisions of Section 166 as they stand cannot be applied to rural districts. The proposal in the Bill to meet this difficulty is to enable rural district councils, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to exercise the same powers as are exercisable by an urban district council with the consent of the owners and ratepayers. The reason for substituting the consent of the Local Government Board for that of the owners and ratepayers, to which, I believe, some exception was taken in another place, is that the consent of the owners and ratepayers cannot be conveniently obtained in a rural district. The methods of procedure prescribed in the Public Health Act to obtain this result are quite unsuitable to apply to a rural district, which is often of very wide extent. It is highly desirable that properly constructed markets should be established in rural districts. At present in many instances live stock markets are held on a portion of the public highway, and this practice is very often objectionable, not merely on sanitary grounds, but also from the point of view of the well-being of the animals offered for sale. Rural district councils are, under their present limited powers, unable to spend money on paving places where it has been the custom to hold markets, and on keeping them clean and in a sanitary condition. It is to remove all these difficulties that this Bill has been introduced. The owners and ratepayers will be fully protected under this procedure, because if there was any doubt as to the opinion of a locality the Local Government Board would, of coarse, hold a local inquiry before giving its consent. Some objection has been taken to the additional cost which will be thrown upon local authorities, but I do not think the expense will be at all largo and will be justified on the grounds of public health. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.

My Lords, this is a non-controversial measure dealing with police pensions, which has come up from another place. I understand that the Government have no objection to it, and I hope, therefore, the House will allow it to be read a second time.

My Lords, I have only to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they offer no opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. The Home Office are still of opinion that their original proposal was the best, but as this is a compromise they will do nothing to prevent the passing of this Bill.

My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government the number of persons not previously possessed of land (other than evicted tenants or persons representing evicted tenants), to whom land has been given by the Estates Commissioners purporting to act under Section 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The question of Ireland was before your Lordships both yesterday and the day before, and I shall, therefore, confine my remarks within the briefest possible space, although I think this subject is one not undeserving of your Lordships' attention. I need hardly say that I do not propose to call in question the action of the Estates Commissioners in granting land under subsection (b) of Section 2 of the Land Act of 1903. They are expressly given power to do so, and I believe one argument that was brought forward in favour of the provision was that it might tend to stem the tide of emigration of able bodied young men from Ireland. I quite agree that this is very desirable, but it was not the main object of the Act of 1903. As I understand it, that Act was passed for two special purposes—first, to enable the tenant to purchase the land ho tilled, and I lay emphasis on the phrase "land he tilled;" and, secondly, to enable tenants who had very small holdings but were industrious and possessed of certain means, to have their holdings increased by the addition of a certain amount of grass land in their neighbourhood. This second object is one which has to a great extent caught the public mind. The ears of the public have been taken with the phrases "relief of congestion," and "economic holdings," without, perhaps, their clearly understanding exactly what those terms mean; and the Report which has just been issued by the Royal Commission on Congestion, presided over by Lord Dudley, makes drastic suggestions as to the means by which these matters can be carried out. So far as I can make out, they recommend that the West of Ireland, at least, should be made a second Servia, a peasant State consisting of ton-pound holdings; and that there should be some oases of trees where landlords will be allowed to remain in their parks shut off from the political or economic life of the nation. Perhaps I may be allowed to read to your Lordships what the Dudley Commission say in their Report as to the sufficiency of land to be given both to the sons of tenants and also to relieve congestion. In paragraph 123 the Commissioners say—

"Every holding given to the son of a tenant or to any other person not at present a land holder will to that extent perpetuate congestion in the West."

And, again, in paragraph 126—

"We think it is our duty to state very definitely that such a utilisation of the grass lands of the West of Ireland is incompatible with the relief of congestion."

Whatever we think about the land question in Ireland, we all agree that it is very desirable it should be settled, and that nothing should be done which would tend in any way to accentuate the difficulties in accomplishing that settlement. If land is given, under Section 2, to the sons of tenants, it will not be very long before that son finds some Bridget to share it with him, with the result that perhaps within thirty years you will have five or six other able-bodied landless men claiming that you should do the same for them as you did for their father. I believe that one job ought to be completed before we begin another. Consequently I am averse to any action which may lessen the amount of land available for the relief of congestion. I should like to again quote from the Report of the Dudley Commission——

I am extremely unwilling to interrupt the noble Lord, but I desire to call attention to what I think is something of an abuse in the form in which Notices are put on the Paper. The noble Lord is really calling attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland. That is an extremely natural and legitimate thing to do, but I wish to draw his attention to the fact that if he desired to do that ho should have put his Motion in that form, and not merely have asked the simple Question standing in his name on the Paper.

I am sorry if I have infringed the rule, and I will endeavour to confine myself more closely to the question. To return, then, to this special subsection. I know that it was framed with the best intentions, but I am sorry to say that in my opinion it was one of the greatest mistakes in the Act of 1903. I believe it has had more to do with the unfortunate state of affairs which has existed during the last eighteen months in Ireland than, perhaps, anything else, with the exception, of course, of the action—or what I shall, perhaps, more correctly describe as inaction—of the Chief Secretary. Small tenants and their sons knew of this provision in the Act, and it was only natural that they should wish to take advantage of it. The result is that strong local opposition has been raised to the migration of tenants from other parts of Ireland to the grass lands in the immediate neighbourhood where those tenants with their sons are living; and, in the fear that such lands might be taken for the relief of congestion elsewhere, these young men have, I am afraid, had recourse to very reprehensible measures. In the hope of ob. twining the land as soon as possible they have resorted to the practice of cattle-driving, which has reached such a state of perfection, I will not say under the auspices, but under the rule of His Majesty's Government. They have done this in the hope of compelling the graziers to give up their farms and the landlords to sell, so that the land might be divided among the landless men in the neighbourhood, and the effect will be to accentuate the difficulties of relieving congestion elsewhere. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.

My Lords, in answer to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that up to 31st March last the Estates Commissioners had provided (under Section 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, as amended by Section 19 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906) parcels of untenanted land for 137 persons, who were either sons of tenants or labourers. The answer to the supplementary Question is that the Commissioners had allotted, under Section 2,70,326 acres of untenanted land altogether among 2,647 persons, and of these all but the 137 mentioned had previously been in possession of land. The average size of the "parcel" of land so allotted was, in the case of sons of tenants and labourers, thirty-five acres per man. Having re- gard to the very large number of advances made by the Commissioners for the purchase of "parcels" under Section 2, it cannot be said that the Commissioners have unduly exercised their powers by allotting 137 holdings to persons who had not already been in possession of land.

Sons of tenants are, I admit, in the Act. Can the noble Lord say how many of the 137 were labourers?

I shall be obliged if the noble Earl will give me notice of that Question. I cannot give the exact figure, but the number is very small.