combined some of the features of this system with that of the "Allocated grants" system, and their recommendations are certainly not marked with very great clearness, and will, when embodied in a Bill, be subjected to very severe criticism. One thing, however, is fairly clear, and it is that the Committee's proposals certainly aim at the simplification of the grants. At present there are no fewer than eight kinds. of grants towards education, which, after all, is perhaps the most distinctly national service administered locally of all.

It is, of course, impossible in the space of this short article to discuss the details of the proposed alterations, but it certainly is satisfactory to note the Committe's recommendation" that all grants be conditional on the efficient "administration of the services in respect of which they are given, and be made subject to a general power of reduction " and regulation on the part of the Supervising Government Department" (par. 390). Before leaving the question of grants, I should point out one other important feature of the proposals. It is proposed "that the entire cost of Criminal prosecutions and the whole of the additional expenditure caused by the Criminal Appeal Act be borne "by the Exchequer, and that a grant be made of one-half "the net charge that would otherwise fall upon the rates in "respect of Criminal prosecutions" (par. 385, i and ii).

The total increase of the proposed Government subventions is estimated at £4,700,000.

I have already pointed out the views expressed by the Committee on the question of rating Land Values. It is further interesting to find that the Committee does not favour the substitution of a local income tax, either wholly or partly, for the present system; in fact, they submit that the administrative difficulties in the way of such a substitution are practically inseparable. Neither can they recommend the transfer of the Inhabited House Duty to the local authorities.

In dealing with this Chapter of the Committee's Report, it probably will not be denied that, next to the question of grants, the proposals for the reform of the machinery of rating are highly significant, especially as it is probable that a Bill for the reform of the whole Rating System, based on these proposals, will shortly be introduced.

Of these, the most important is that which has already been attacked with much vigour on all hands, namely, that the preparation of all valuations for rating purposes be transferred from the overseers of the poor to the Land Valuation Office. That this proposal was expected by those in authority can scarcely be denied. In November 1912, after the appointment of the Departmental Committee, a letter of great significance passed between Mr. Lloyd George and Sir John Kempe, the Chairman of the Committee, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "a great "Government Department has been created for the purpose "of the Finance Act, 1910, and it would be important to "learn whether, in the opinion of the Committee, it would "be desirable that this Department should be utilised for "the creation of a uniform and simple valuation for the purpose of rating."

66

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Departmental Committee recommend this drastic and exceedingly farreaching change. And, it appears that they anticipate opposition, for they say, "the intervention of the Govern"ment Valuation Staff in local valuation, may meet with "some opposition" (par 321). At present it seems fairly certain that this anticipated opposition is likely to be keen and wide-spread, for the proposal is looked upon as an intrusion of local administration by a Government Department, which may possibly be the forerunner of many socalled reforms, by which local control will be superseded by Departmental Government in matters essentially belonging to the sphere of Local Government.

The Committee proposes to leave the hearing of what they term appeals, but which in strict terms are objections, to the local assessment committee. This body, however, will probably undergo a change in constitution, for it is recommended that it should "comprise representatives of "the counties, boroughs, and districts concerned," which presumably means that its members shall be elected by, and from the governing bodies of those areas. There will, no doubt, be some improvement in the arrangements for the submission and hearing of objections, but it is doubtful whether the proposal with regard to appeals will prove a satisfactory one. It is certainly drastic, though one which has for many years been expected. The present functions of Quarter and Special Sessions, in relation to appeals, are to be entirely abolished, and from the decision of the Assessment Committee an appeal will, if the proposals become law, not be to those Sessions but to a Special Appellate Tribunal consisting of a practising barrister or solicitor and two eminent valuers, the decision of this tribunal to be final except on points of law. The right of appeal is to be enjoyed by the Land Valuation Office, the overseers, parish council, or an aggrieved ratepayer.

This recommendation is found in paragraph 323 (J), and is certainly not a specimen of clear and skilful draughtsmanship. Indeed, it appears to be mostly loosely based on sect. 32 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act 1869, and as it stands is almost unintelligible. If the provisions of paragraph 322 ever become law, it is almost impossible to conceive of circumstances in which the overseers, at any rate, can become parties to an objection before the Assessment Committee, so as to entitle them to the exercise of a right of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

The assessments of special properties, such as docks, railways and canals, are not to be the subject of objection.

to the Assessment Committee, but an appeal direct to the Appellate Tribunal appears to be the course suggested.

That the present rating system requires considerable amendment, if not drastic reform, seems to be admitted on all hands, but whether the foregoing proposals, if embodied in a Bill, are such as to meet with general approval, is extremely doubtful, and remains to be seen.

REFORMER.

VI. CURRENT NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL

THE

LAW.

The Russo-Turkish Arbitration.

'HE proceedings in the arbitration which took place on the question of the liability of Turkey to pay to Russia interest on the unpaid balances of the war indemnity of 1879 merit a word or two of notice, based on an article contributed to the Jahrbuch des Völkerrecht by Baron S. A. Korff. The proceedings, though conducted at the Hague in October-November 1912, were not, strictly speaking, before the Hague Tribunal. That tribunal admits only one arbitrator of each nationality: in this case there were two of each-Baron Taube (Russian) being the best known name. Dr. Lardy (Swiss) was chosen as umpire, and he was thus the only neutral concerned. The proviso that no dissent was to be recorded cannot be commended. It is advocated as investing the decision with greater force. But, as Westlake has shown, the apparent homogeneous force of the decision is purely factitious. Only a child would ascribe any greater value to the decision of five personages because the mouths of two of them are closed! Such a practice has actually the effect of weakening the force of all decisions of a tribunal that adopts it. For it is always possible that a given decision may be that

of a mere majority. The practice is, it may well be believed, one of the reasons of the inferiority of the Privy Council to the House of Lords as a source of law. It is not calculated to enhance the authority of the English Criminal Appeal Court: and it formed one of the strongest objections to the International Prize Court proposed at the second Hague Peace Congress. A sentimental value may be attached to the single judgments being. "the judgment of the Court." But the judgment is the judgment of the Court in any event. And the opinion of three men is not converted into the opinion of five men simply by styling it such.

The Tribunal decided (1) that interest was payable on demands of nation against nation, at any rate on liquidated cash demands; (2) that the Russian war indemnity, though expressly executed for the compensation of Russian individuals, was in principle a national claim; (3) that the financial and political difficulties of the Ottoman Government were not such as to constitute vis major, impeding it from the fulfilment of its undertaking, but (4) that Russia, after eleven years, could not fairly spring this claim upon the Turks.

The decision seems right and equitable, though the international lawyer will feel inclined to put it on much broader and more elastic grounds than on this somewhat artificial chain of reasoning. The actual attitude of the Tribunal, and indeed the whole atmosphere of the proceedings, was permeated by an air which it may be permissible to criticise. It was the close assimilation of the process to the trial of a private law case-and a French private law case. The advocates were French and the language was Frenchand perhaps it was inevitable that the legal milieu should have been French as well. None the less, it is to be