LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

HL Deb 17 December 1919 vol 38 cc300-54

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Procedure for compulsory acquisition of land, and entry on land to be acquired.

3.—(1) For the purpose of the compulsory acquisition of land under the foregoing provisions of this Act, the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect.

(2) Where an Order for the compulsory acquisition of land has been duly made under the provisions of this Act, then at any time after a notice to treat has been served the Board may, after giving not less than fourteen days' notice to each owner, lessee, and occupier of the land or such part thereof as is specified in the notice, enter on and take possession of the land without previous consent or compliance with sections eighty-three to eighty-eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, but subject to the payment of the like compensation for the land of which possession is taken and interest on the compensation awarded as would have been payable if those provisions had been complied with.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to insert the following new subsection— (2) No order for the compulsory acquisition of land made under the provisions of this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land which at the date of the order forms part of any park, or of any home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house if the land is required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house, or of any land which at that date forms part of any garden or pleasure ground, or which is woodland, not wholly surrounded by or adjacent to land acquired by the Board under this Act.

The noble Duke said: This Amendment is perfectly simple and straightforward. There is a similar provision to be found in the Small Holders (Scotland) Act, and much the same idea is followed in the English Act. I cannot quite understand why it is not in Part I of this Bill. I presume the reason is that it was not thought that such ground would be required, that it possibly was of an expensive nature and unlikely to be dealt with within the period of two years which is covered by Part I of this Act. In other words, I imagine that the Secretary for Scotland, as he has not excised it from Part II of the Bill—that is to say, it is in there by inference—considers it is unnecessary in Part I, and therefore not objectionable in itself.

Perhaps the Secretary for Scotland is afraid that it might prevent him from purchasing a whole estate in which there may be a home farm or a mansion house. If such is the case, certainly it is not my intention to put that interpretation upon it. I must also point out to your Lordships that there is another Amendment later on that I may have to move on another part of the Bill, which deals with very much the same subject. It is to give the Board of Agriculture leave to buy other ground to substitute for a home farm if such is necessary and for the advantage of both parties.

I do not particularly wish to press this Amendment to a Division. At the same time it is only just and right that we should have it, because it might be very hard on a small estate especially if the whole of the surrounding ground were bought, and even the mansion house and the reasonable pleasure grounds were to be taken. I think it is necessary more for the protection of small landowners than large ones, and it is already admitted in the principal Act.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 18, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Amendment which has been moved by the noble Duke in studiously moderate terms was one which was considered in the House of Commons and it may perhaps be worth while, in however short a time, to consider its history. It was moved, not in identical but in very similar terms, by Sir George Younger on October 28, and after debate it was withdrawn. An Amendment in terms which I think have suggested those employed by the noble Duke, was moved on the Report State on December 2. On that occasion it was negatived without a Division.

The restriction which the Amendment of the noble Duke would impose would apply to land purchased by the Board under Part I of the Bill. As regards land which may be selected for the purpose of small holdings under Part II, restrictions much more comprehensive than those suggested were prescribed by Section 7 and Section 26 of the Act of 1911, which are not affected by this Bill. When the Amendments were moved in the House of Commons it was pointed out—and this I think at least cannot be denied, whatever the reasonable view upon this question may be—that the usual and more convenient procedure under Part I would be for the Board to purchase the whole of an estate; and that while, even if the Amendment were inserted, the Board could still do this by agreement, yet if the landlord should refuse to sell the whole by agreement, the Board could insist on buying only divided portions. That might be, as any one will readily see, very hampering and restrictive upon their freedom.

Here we approach a question which I anticipate I shall have to ask more than once in the course of these debates—How far are your Lordships prepared to trust the Board? I know that many will say, and perhaps some among the number who have a good deal of experience of the Board, that they are not satisfied with the decisions which they have taken in the past, or with the exercise of their discretion in the past. These are topics that can only be touched upon with great reticence and discretion. I am not unaware that many noble Lords who represent important interests in Scotland have formed the view that the discretion of the Board in the last few years has not always been exercised—I choose my language carefully—in the wisest possible direction. We have, after all, to look to the future, and in my humble judgment, for what it is worth, that any great interest in this House—and the Scottish landlords, historically and actually, represent a very great interest in this House and a very powerful contribution to the national life of these Islands—I cannot help thinking that they would act unwisely if they despaired of the fairness of the Scottish Board of Agriculture; if, in other words, they said they were not definitely prepared to accept legislation upon these lines, and to believe that at least those who administer it will administer it with responsibility, with fairness, and with a due sense of their public obligation.

I make these general observations not because they bear directly upon the present Amendment but because I think these considerations ought to be borne in mind by your Lordships in the differences of opinion which have manifested themselves between those who speak for these interests and those who have put forward these proposals on behalf of the Government. I assure you that there is not only no desire to inflict any injustice upon any legitimate interest but that the very contrary is the case. It certainly does happen here, as it happened in the case of the English proposals—if the contrary can be proved in argument I will gladly listen and see whether I can meet it in reply—that cases arise in which it is not possible to carry out the purposes of the Government and not possible to give effect to admittedly public interests without involving a certain degree of inconvenience and of hardship to certain classes in the community.

I beg your Lordships to apply your minds to the specific proposals, not very numerous though of great importance, which confront us in the Committee stage of this Bill with the knowledge that it is the desire of every one, as far as their purpose can be reconciled with the essential objects of the Bill, to see that fair play is done. It was, and is, the view of the Secretary for Scotland and of the Board that the wiser course in relation to this particular Amendment would have been to rely upon the decision of the authorities—the consent of the Treasury and the consent of the Secretary for Scotland are alike necessary before such proposals can be carried out. While that is true, at the same time everybody must realise that there is some sentiment which surrounds the proposal to acquire land which forms part of a park or home farm, and if it be the view of those who I know are acting with the noble Duke that on the whole, and having regard to their experience in the last five or six years, they would prefer the security which is given to them by this Amendment to such security as is alternatively secured to them by a decision of the Board of Agriculture, subject to correction by the Secretary for Scotland, the Government would not be prepared to contest it or challenge it.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I think the main point is this, that we are not quite satisfied that injustice might not be done under the Bill. There is no intention or wish to prevent the Secretary for Scotland, that is to say the Board, from purchasing the home estate, but we think it necessary to safeguard small estates for the next two years, and if the noble and learned Lord is prepared to say that this power under the Bill is not going to be used unjustly, I personally have no wish to force the Amendment, because I have a much more important one to move.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I think one of the points is that it is possible for the whole of the land to be taken and only the mansion house left, which would be practically valueless. Under the clause that would be done, and it rather reads as if it was intended.

LORD LOVAT

May I raise one further point which I think goes to the whole root of the opposition to this Bill? I think the central point, which the Lord Chancellor rather seems to have missed in his argument, is that what is resented on this side is the fact that we in Scotland have been treated in an entirely different way from the way in which English Peers were treated when a Bill with exactly the same object, namely, the settlement of soldiers on the land in England, was introduced last session. That is the root of our opposition, because we say you are treating English owners of land in one way and—either because the Government declined to stand up to a certain section, or because they do not expect the same support from Scottish landlords—they have treated Scottish landowners in an entirely different way. It is not in the least a matter of administration by the Board. I am perfectly prepared to submit myself to the good mercy of the Board, and I hope we shall be properly treated, but here is a definite Amendment which was accepted in the English Bill but which is left out of this Bill.

If noble Lords on the Government bench can bring forward a single argument why in Scotland parks and home lands should be treated in a different way to parks and home lands in England, we shall be glad to listen to them, but no such argument is forthcoming. Personally I associate myself on the question of a division on this Amendment with the noble Duke who has recently spoken. We shall be very loth to divide the House on a matter of secondary importance. We have one and all declared that we wish to see this Bill passed and soldiers settled on the land, and if we have to make additional sacrifices we are prepared to do so; but we ask the Government to give us a concrete reason why landlords in Scotland should be treated differently from the stronger body of land-owners and people representing the land interest in England.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the discussion would have been accelerated if the noble Lord had listened a little more carefully to what I said. He is quite wrong in saying that I did not appreciate the central argument which was advanced. He is still more wrong when he says that I have not appreciated the point made on the Second Reading debate, that one must attempt to see whether landlords in Scotland are treated in the same way as landlords in England. It is for that reason that I indicated to your Lordships after considerable discussion that this Amendment was one which, if pressed, the Government are prepared to accept. Why noble Lords should say that I have paid no attention at all to the point made over and over again on the Second Reading I confess myself unable to see. I told the noble Duke who moved this Amendment in a spirit of great moderation that if on the whole he preferred the security which was afforded to him by this Amendment to reliance upon the Board of Agriculture the Government would not resist it. I cannot say more than that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to

Clause 4:

"Power to contract to pay feu duty, &c.

4. Where, under the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918, the Board has power to purchase land in consideration of a feu duty, ground annual, or other annual payment, the Board shall have power and shall be deemed always to have had power to contract to pay the feu duty, ground annual, or other annual payment as and when it becomes due.

LORD SALTOUN moved to insert as a new subsection— (2) Where the Board exercise the said power to purchase land in consideration of a feu duty, ground, annual, or other annual payment, the amount of the annual payment shall be such as would, if sold in the market by a willing seller at the time the amount of the annual payment is fixed, realise a capital sum equal to the value of the laud.

The noble Lord (who was indistinctly heard) said: The point that I want to raise is that this is a novel way of giving an agricultural holding in Scotland. So far as I know, we have no feus for agricultural land. The fens that we have experience of are feus for building land, and in those cases, of course, there is the house on the land as security for the feu. But if the land is feud, as, is proposed under this scheme, I do not see where there will be any security whatever for the feu. The Bill says that the Board has power to purchase land in consideration of a feu duty, and that the Board shall have power and shall be deemed always to have had power to contract to pay the feu duty as and when it becomes due. It is important in connection with this matter that consideration should be given to the market value of such an annual payment. It is easy to see that the capital value by the sale of a fourteen years' purchase can never possibly be approached. No one here will dispute that. The value of the farm may be considerable and yet all that the landlord can get is the equivalent of a fourteen years' purchase.

Amendment moved— Page 2, after line 36, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Saltoun.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord was kind enough this afternoon to bring me his Amendment and ask me if I had any observations that I could usefully make upon it. I regretted very much that at the moment I had another subject, and a very complicated and difficult one, in my mind, and it was not possible for me to take advantage of the opportunity for discussion that he was good enough to afford me. But I think the Amendment has been put down under a little misapprehension. The Amendment deals with the power of the Board, and it is a question of the exercise of "the said power" of the Board. The power which is referred to is their power when purchasing land to contract to pay an annual sum instead of a lump sum. This is a power that can be exercised by agreement only—I am not sure that the noble Lord is aware of that—that is, only if the owner of the land consents to accept payment in that form; and, that being so, it is for him to see that the annual payment is sufficient. He can always insist on payment of the whole price at once. Further, there is another point, namely, that the Amendment, if inserted, might prove to be actually hampering to limited owners contracting with the Board, for which purpose they have these special powers under Section 5 of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, which is applied by Clause 5 (2) of this Bill. No one is more conscious than, I am that to fling a number of sections and subsections at the head of the noble Lord is likely to be a little bewildering, and if there is any doubt about this point, if he would be good enough to approach me privately, I am quite sure I could resolve it to his satisfaction.

LORD SALTOUN

I think the wording of this is bad. If the noble and learned Lord would leave out the words "has power to," or at all events would consider that point and allow me to bring it up on Report, I think such an Amendment would make it much clearer.

LORD SHAW

I think the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite is really founded upon a mistake. I think this Amendment clearly applies to an arrangement for acquisition of land between the owner on the one hand and the Board on the other. If that acquisition of land is in the form of a capital payment, then there may be a fixed or an agreed sum, or they may be required to proceed to ascertain that sum. But in the case of agreement I desire to impress upon the House the great advantage to the landlord interest in accepting feu duties or annual payments instead of a capital sum. I will illustrate this by only one figure. In former times I had much to do with the valuation of property realised on the subject of feu duties. In those days the feu duties were of a higher value than now, but there is no better security known in Scotland than a feu duty. It is the envy of other systems of jurisprudence. May I press my noble friend to reconsider this matter, because I think the advantage of the option given to the landowner to make this a feu duty payment is highly in the interest of landed proprietors.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Powers of Board with respect to land acquired.

7. Without prejudice to any other power conferred on the Board by the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, or the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918, the Board shall have power in any case where in their opinion it is necessary or expedient so to do for the better carrying into effect the purposes of those Acts or of this Act—

1. (a) to erect, repair, or improve dwelling-houses and other buildings on any land acquired by the Board, or to execute any other improvement on or in connection with and for the benefit of any such land, or to arrange with the tenant or holder of any such land for the execution of any such improvement on such terms as may be agreed:
2. (b) to sell, excamb, or let any such land or any right or interest therein: and
3. (c) generally to manage any such land.

LORD LAMINGTON moved, in paragraph (b), after "therein," to insert the following proviso— ("Provided that (subject to the provisions of this Act as to the prior offer to the Forestry Commissioners of land suitable for afforestation) unless the land has been offered to and purchased by the tenant of the land, the Board shall offer such land to the owner from whom the land was purchased, or his successor in title, at a price at which in default of agreement shall be determined by the Land Court ").

The noble Lord said: Clause 7 gives powers to the Board, and amongst those powers is that to "sell excamb or let any such land or any right or interest therein." It is obviously a distinct hardship to a landowner to have his land taken for the national purpose of the creation of small holdings and then in the course of time find that this land might be diverted to some other object—a factory, or whatever it might be. I have put down this Amendment for the protection of the original landowner. In the first place some objection was taken to it on account of the forestry interest, but that has now been included in the scope of my Amendment, and I therefore trust that the noble and learned Lord will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 12, after ("therein") to insert the said proviso.—(Lord Lamington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It would certainly not be possible to accept this Amendment in the language in which it is conveyed; and, as I do not desire to found myself upon a technical objection to it, I say that on the merits also it is in my judgment open to grave objection. As drafted the Amendment would require the Board to offer purchased land back again to the owner before letting it even to a small holder. I cannot think that this is the object of the noble Lord.

LORD LAMINGTON

No.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I can assure the noble Lord that it will have that effect. No doubt it is intended to apply only to "sell or excamb," and this defect to which I have called attention could be rectified by inserting the words before "sell or excamb," such land. I ask the noble Lord to accept that.

LORD LAMINGTON

I accept that amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Now as to the merits. This Amendment, securing in every case where the Board purchases land for small holdings a right of pre-emption to the seller or his successor, was not proposed in the House of Commons, where many Amendments which were well worth consideration were brought forward—as has been the case also in this House—and it is one which in my judgment ought to be resisted. If the Board purchase by agreement and the seller desires to reserve such a right—in the case of an agreement it ought to be left to a voluntary and declared reservation—the Board can always consent if they think it compatible with proper freedom in their subsequent dealings and if they could thereby reduce the price. But if the Board should purchase compulsorily a much more formidable consideration arises. The intention then is that they should buy out and out, and the whole frame and the scheme of the Bill are upon the basis that they should buy out and out. In those circumstances the superfluous land provisions of the Lands Clause Act are excluded from incorporation by paragraph 2 of the First Schedule. This exclusion is in accordance with recent practice wherever a local authority or a Government Department is the acquiring authority, and I think I am right in saying that the practice has also been shared in England. I think this particular Amendment is open to two further criticisms, both of which are worthy of attention. In the first place, it is inconsistent with the obligation of the Board under Clause 6, sub-clause (5) of the Bill to give the Forestry Commissioners an opportunity of buying any land suitable for afforestation which the Board may wish to take.

LORD LAMINGTON

That is saved; that is in the Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have the words of the noble Lord's Amendment before me, and I do not think it is saved.

LORD LAMINGTON

It says: "Subject to the provisions of this Act as to the prior offer to the Forestry Commissioners of land suitable for afforestation." That is saved.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I agree that those words save that, but I should desire to consider them more carefully before agreeing that the protection is complete. I think that particular criticism has been anticipated by the noble Lord, and he has attempted to deal with it. The second objection I suggest is, I think, more formidable. "The price at which the land was purchased," I think, is the wording used by the noble Lord. That, surely, is an uncertain measure. It is highly improbable that the Board would re-sell a whole estate, an estate in its entirety. I have the words here. [THE LORD CHANCELLOR then read the Amendment.] I do not know how recently the noble Lord amended his Amendment, but I think there is something in the last line which does not appear in the form in which it was before me this morning.

LORD LAMINGTON

It was circulated this morning.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It should be "price at which," I suppose?

LORD LAMINGTON

Yes.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I cannot help thinking that if this Amendment were adopted it would prove really to be quite inconsistent with the basis upon which any system of compulsory purchase can be defended. All the great landlords of these islands—it is a circumstance, if I may say so, of which we may all feel proud—have desired to assist the main features of these proposals, and, of course, a principal feature of all of them is the compulsory element. I cannot help thinking that the objection to this Amendment is almost insuperable, and that if the Board must purchase compulsorily the intention of such compulsory purchase is that they should buy out and out. In that case I would point out that the superfluous land provision of the Lands Clauses Act excludes the particular incorporation by paragraph (2) of the first schedule, and that practice has applied in the case of England in Scotland. Unless, therefore, this is one of those points—I know there are one or two to which noble Lords attach very great importance—which they regard as being of the highest importance, I should hope they would not think it worth while making this a subject of difference.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I venture to suggest that the noble and learned Lord should not give a final decision on this Amendment at present, because it is quite clear that since he first had the opportunity of seeing the Amendment it has been re-drafted. Anybody who followed his speech could see that the form in which he had seen the Amendment was not the precise form in which it appears on the Paper. Perhaps the drafting is not perfect now, because the noble and learned Lord has pointed out that certain words would require to be changed. But on the real substance of the matter, I think my noble friend behind me is absolutely right. The broad object of the Amendment is that if the land which has been taken from the landlord turns out in fact not to be required for the purpose of the Act, then the landlord shall have the opportunity to recover it. I cannot see anything objectionable in that principle. It seems to me to be straightforward. It does not follow as a matter of certainty that the landlord will wish to recover the land, but it is proposed that he should have the opportunity to do so, supposing it is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired by the authority.

The only point which remains is as to the price at which this opportunity should be afforded. On this point it is clear that there must be a re-drafting of the Amendment as it stands on the Paper, but otherwise it is very difficult for a layman to see what objection can be made to it. It is proposed that the land should be re-sold at a price to be fixed by the Land Court in case of a difference of opinion, and I cannot see how anything more fair can be proposed. I do not say that this is one of the Amendments of vital importance and I do not suppose my noble friend would desire to die in the last ditch for it. I only suggest to the Government that it is an obviously fair Amendment, and if the noble and learned Lord, not having seen the Amendment in this form until he stood at the Table, wished for an opportunity to reconsider it, I suggest that it should be postponed to the next stage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Marquess has made a proposal which is perfectly fair and I gladly accept it, because our object is to arrive at an accommodation. If the noble Lord will withdraw it for the moment I must not be understood as promising more, but I will most carefully consider it and the arguments in its support.

LORD LAMINGTON

I will withdraw on that understanding.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9:

Amendment of section 7 of Act of 1911.

9. For subsections (8), (9), (10) and (11) of section seven of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911 (in this Act referred to as the Act of 1911), there shall be substituted the following subsections:—

"(8)— (a) Where the Board are satisfied that there is a demand for small holdings and that suitable land is available for that purpose, it shall be the duty of the Board to prepare a scheme for the constitution of one or more new holdings on such land, to be occupied by new holders upon such terms and conditions not inconsistent with the Landholders Acts as the Board think reasonable.

"(b) Every such scheme shall show—

1. (i) the situation and total area of the land on which one or more new holdings are to be constituted;
2. (ii) the number and respective situations and areas of the new holdings;
3. (iii) which, if any, of the existing buildings on the land are to be utilised for the new holdings;
4. (iv) the water supply for each new holding, including the source from which the supply is to be taken, and any necessary pipes or other works;
5. (v) the situation and area of any common pasture or grazing to be occupied in connection with the new holdings; and
6. (vi) the rent of each new holding.

"(c) Where the Board are satisfied that there is not available on the land on which the new holdings are to be constituted a supply of water sufficient for the holdings, they may include in the scheme provision for taking and conveying from or through any part of the estate whereof such land forms part such supply of water as may be necessary for the new holding and is not required for the remainder of the estate; and for the purposes of this section any land from or through which supply of water is to be taken or conveyed shall be deemed to be comprised in the scheme.

"(9) Where the Board intend to prepare such a scheme, they shall give notice of their intention to the landlord of any land which is to be comprised therein, and when a landlord has received such notice it shall not be lawful for him, save with the consent of the Board, to let or to enter into any agreement for letting such land or any part thereof until the Board have made an order confirming the scheme, or have abandoned the same:

"Provided that—

1. (a) Such disability shall not in any case continue for a longer period than six months from the date of notice, and
2. (b) for any loss sustained by a landlord, tenant, or occupier from the operation of this subsection, the Board shall pay to him such compensation as may be agreed or as may be determined, failing agreement, by the Land Court on the application of either party.

"(10) When the Board have prepared a scheme under this section they shall intimate the prepared scheme to the landlord, tenant, and occupier of any land comprised therein, and shall give to such landlord, tenant and occupier, an opportunity of considering the scheme and of making representations concerning the same to the Board, and after giving to all persons interested an opportunity of being heard may, with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland, make an Order confirming the scheme, in whole or in part, and with or without modification, or may abandon the scheme.

"(11)— (a) Where the Board make any such order, they shall notify the same to the landlord, tenant and occupier of any land comprised therein, and shall pay to such landlord, tenant and occupier such compensation for any damage or injury done to him in consequence of and directly attributable to the constitution of new holdings under the scheme (including any damage or injury done to a landlord in respect of an obligation to take over sheep stock at a valuation) as may be agreed or as may be determined, failing agreement, by the Land Court, upon the application of either party, and after giving to all persons interested an opportunity of being heard, and, if they so desire, of leading evidence in the matter.

"(b) The compensation payable under this subsection shall not include—

1. (i) any allowance on account of the constitution of new holdings being compulsory;
2. (ii) any compensation for injury done to or depreciation in the selling value of the land comprised in the scheme, or of any estate whereof such land forms part, except in so far as the same arises from injury done to or depreciation in the letting value of the land or estate; Or
3. (iii) any compensation for injury done to the value of the sporting rights over such land or estate in so far as it exceeds the estimated value of such rights if the land or-estate were put to the full possible use-for which it could be let to agricultural or pastoral tenants.

(c)" For the purpose of this subsection any benefit or relief enhancing the letting value of the land comprised in the scheme or of any estate of which such land forms part resulting to a landlord or to any other person in consequence of and directly attributable to the constitution of new holdings under the scheme upon the one hand shall be set against any damage or injury done to him as aforesaid upon the other hand.

"(d) In determining the amount of compensation payable to the tenant of any farm, regard shall be had to the duration of his lease, and in no case shall any allowance for loss of tenant's profits be made in respect of a period exceeding three years.

"(e)— (i) Where any compensation has been awarded and the amount thereof determined by the Land Court under this subsection, the Board may at any time within two months after such determination, resolve to abandon the scheme and withdraw the order, paying to any person any expenses reasonably incurred by him in connection with the making of the order or the claim for compensation, as such expenses may, failing agreement, be determined by the Land Court on the application of either party.

"(ii) Subject to the foregoing provision, every order made by the Board for the constitution of new holdings shall be recorded in the Landholders' Holdings Book as if it were an order of the Land Court, and shall there upon have effect and be enforceable in like manner as an order of the Land Court so recorded.

"(f) In any case where the Board have entered into an agreement with a landlord or a tenant or any other person for or in connection with the constitution of one or more new holdings upon land in which such landlord, tenant or other person is interested the Board may pay to any person so interested, whether a party to the agreement or not, such compensation (or other consideration in money), if any, as the Board consider equitable and consistent with the provisions of this subsection in respect of any damage or injury done to him in consequence of and directly attributable to the constitution of the new holdings, and it may be a term of any such agreement entered into by the Board with a landlord that section seventeen of this Act shall apply in respect of any such new holding as if the holding had been constituted otherwise than by agreement, and in that case the said section shall apply accordingly."

LORD ERSKINE moved, at the end of the substituted subsection (8) (a), to insert the following proviso— Provided that, in considering the relative suitability of land, the Board shall have regard to the probable effect of a scheme upon the burden of rates in the locality concerned.

The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I have the honour to move is practically the same as one moved by the Secretary for Scotland in Committee of the House of Commons. It was, however, taken out on the Report Stage after an interesting debate, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will now see his way to agree to its re-introduction. Noble Lords who own land in Scotland are not one whit less anxious than other Scotsmen to see small holdings created in Scotland. They recognise that the strength of Scotland depends upon settling men in these crofts as in former days, but they feel strongly that the Board of Agriculture should take the rating question into consideration, and they consider it only wise and proper that the instruction should be included in the terms of the Bill.

This is a matter affecting in a vital degree the interests not only of landowners but also of ratepayers in many parts of the Highlands. Without entering into detail on a very controversial subject, it is sufficient to say that there are vast tracts of the Highlands which are suited for nothing but deer. These tracts of country, as pastoral subjects, are worth practically nothing, but they have a high value for sporting purposes, and the rents obtained for them pay a large portion of the local rates in the very districts where, owing to the barren nature of the country, the assessable rental is abnormally low and the local rates aye abnormally high. For example, in the year 1914–15 the total assessable rental of the parish of Bogart was £4,715, of which £2,281, or 48 per cent., was sporting rental, and for the parish of Kildonan the total rental was £11,940, of which £6,820, or 57½ per cent., was sporting rental.

To enable the deer in these barren tracts of country to live, it is essential that they should have some area of low lying grazing ground in the winter. The extent of this ground may only be a fraction of the total area of the forest, but if it is withdrawn the whole forest is ruined. For example, the rent of one forest before sheep stock was introduced used to be £1,200, the sporting tenant paying occupier's taxes. As the result of the introduction of sheep on to part of the forest the rent has fallen to £750, the proprietor paying the occupier's taxes. The tenant has indicated that he will not return as a large part of the forest is useless. The grazing rent paid by two tenants is £30. The fact remains, therefore, that if the Board of Agriculture for the sake of a few hundred acres of rough grazing were to cut out these parts of a forest they would ruin the whole, and under the present Bill as it stands the proprietor would get no compensation whatever for the loss of a very valuable sporting subject, for which he has been regularly taxed.

The indiscriminate taking of these wintering areas will, however, most seriously affect not only the proprietor of the forest, but all the other ratepayers of the district. I have figures here as to the local rates in some parishes which disclose the present serious state of matters even where sporting rentals are uninjured and bearing a very large share of the burden. In many parishes the education rate has gone up this year three and four times above last year's figures, and in one case (Moy) five times. The parish of Arisaig, with a gross assessable rental of £7,000, has to raise £2,144 in rates. In one parish the sum to be raised for education works out at nearly£17 per pupil. In view of these startling figures anything which would lower the existing assessable rental of these parishes would spell bankruptcy and reduce many of the parishes in the north of Scotland to the pauperised condition of the Outer Islands. In these districts sporting rentals have an economic value which far outweigh any small agricultural loss that may exist through the land being put to its present use.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 39, at end insert: ("Provided that, in considering the relative suitability of land, the Board shall have regard to the probable effect of a scheme upon the burden of rates in the locality concerned").—(Lord Erskine)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Amendment moved by the noble Lord undoubtedly raises a point of considerable importance, and about which many noble Lords speak strongly. Its career in the House of Commons was somewhat chequered. The noble Lord has been an attentive student of the debate in the House of Commons on this point. In the Scottish Standing Committee Sir George Younger moved an Amendment which had the same object as that of the noble Lord. The Lord Advocate submitted a revised version, and this revised version of the Lord Advocate, who is a very accomplished lawyer and draftsman, was accepted. But the noble Lord has fastened for dialectic purposes on the very amendment which was drafted and recommended by the Lord Advocate. In the Report stage the omission of the proviso was accepted and agreed to by the Government and rather surprisingly, having regard to its history, it excited no dissent or comment. It is not for me to attempt to compose the differences of view that arose in the stages which I have briefly summarised, but the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is, after all, a somewhat innocent one. He says that in considering the relative suitability of land the Board shall have regard to the probable effect of the scheme on the burden of rates in the locality concerned. I am on the whole—and perhaps I may be allowed to have an independent opinion having regard to the difference of view which has taken place in the House below—of opinion that there is no reason at all why, in considering the relative suitability of land, the Board should not have regard to the probable effect of a scheme upon the burden of rates in the locality concerned. Therefore I take upon myself to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

There is a lot of other business, and therefore I will only say on my Amendment that I do not think there is any objection to it. It is really drafting.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes; I accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 23, leave out ("is not required for") and insert ("which can be taken without detriment to the requirements of").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LAMINGTON moved, at the end of subsection (11) (a), to insert— Provided that, where within twenty-one days after the receipt from the Board of a notification of the making of an order under this subsection, a landlord or tenant as the case may be, intimates to the Board that he claims compensation to an amount exceeding three hundred pounds and that he desires to have the question whether damage or injury entitling him to compensation as aforesaid will be done together with the amount of such compensation (if any) to be settled by arbitration instead of by the Land Court, the same shall be settled accordingly and at any time within fourteen days after the said intimation, failing agreement with the Board as to the appointment of an arbiter, it shall be lawful for the landlord or tenant, as the case may be, to require the Board to have the questions aforesaid decided by an official arbiter appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.

The noble Lord said: The provision which I wish to insert simply has reference to the nature or character of the tribunal which is to determine the question of compensation when the amount claimed is over £300. I do not wish to press this Amendment, for one reason that the alternative tribunal which I name, namely an official arbiter appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, has never yet been appointed. It is not in existence, I understand, and therefore the Land Court is the only tribunal which can determine the amount of compensation; but at the same time it might be desirable that this new tribunal which is to be formed should be the arbitrating authority instead of the Land Court.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 31, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lamington.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope that the noble Lord will not think that this is an Amendment on which it is worth his while to insist, because it is one which I should feel difficulty in accepting. Its effect would be to preserve the existing law as regards the tribunal for assessing compensation, under Section 7 of the Act of 1911, as provided in subsection (11) of that section, as it stands, and as modified by Section 11, subsection (1), paragraph (a) of the recent Acquisition of Land Act. To put it in popular language, as matters stand the Land Court is the normal tribunal, but the landlord or tenant can demand arbitration where the amount of the claim exceeds £300. For this distinction I confess there does not seem to me to be any sound reason, and I do not think any of your Lordships who are familiar with recent developments in Scotland will dispute the claim which I now make, that recourse to arbitration has been frequent, delaying and very costly. It will be my unfortunate duty to say more on the subject on another Amendment.

If it is said that the Land Court is not a good assessing tribunal, I am informed by those who are in a better position to know that it is a tribunal which, judged by every standard one can employ, is enjoying increasing confidence. Noble Lords know better than I whether that is a well-founded claim, and they may reply that it is enjoying increasing confidence among those whose interests are divergent from theirs. The argument which I desire to establish is of a simple character, and it is this, that if the Land Court is admitted to be a reliable tribunal up to £300, it really would seem to be difficult to argue that for a larger sum one would dispute their competence. It is not the distinction which we might draw between a County Court Judge and a High Court Judge in this country where, admirable as the County Court Judges are, every one will admit that a greater degree of confidence may under all the circumstances be expected from the High Court Judges. But those who are members of the Court are, after all, people in regard to whom even this Amendment insists that up to the amount of £300 they are reliable, and having regard to the evident importance of unanimous and rapid procedure, so far as that is consistent with a proper consideration of the case, I very much hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. If I am to give its Parliamentary history in a sentence, it is this. It was moved in Committee in the other House by Sir George Younger on November 6, and in the Committee on which I think practically all the members were Scots it was very fully debated, and was not even divided upon by the representatives of Scotland who represented all parties on that Committee. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not think it worth while pressing this particular issue.

LORD LAMINGTON

In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (11) (b),to leave out paragraph (ii). The noble Duke said: I think that this is one of the most important Amendments, but it is one which at this late hour I do not wish to detain your Lordships upon long, because I spoke upon it at some length on Second Reading. Perhaps your Lordships will not object to my reading out what is provided as to compensation. I propose to leave out the subsection which states that the compensation payable shall not include "any compensation for injury done to or depreciation in the selling value of the land comprised in the scheme, or of any estate whereof such land forms part, except in so far as the same arises from injury done to or depreciation in the letting value of the land or estate."

The objection that we have to this paragraph in the Bill is this. I think that it has been quite accepted by your Lordships and by Parliament that it is right and proper that the country should take any land which is required for national purposes, but it has been laid down that when the country does that it should be prepared to pay a full and fair value for the land that is taken. Without raising any argument it must be admitted that in this case the individual from whom the land is taken has to pay a part—possibly a small or possibly a considerable part—of the cost of these holdings, because it says that no compensation is to be paid for the objects which I have enumerated. It is said that there have been certain difficulties in the past. No doubt there have been, because the sums allotted for small holdings in Scotland have not been at all extravagant. The whole point, which I do not wish to labour, is that instead of the whole of the cost being paid for by the State a proportion of it is to fall upon the individual. I admit that it will not affect the very large estates so much as the small ones, but it is generally accepted that if small holdings are created on a farm the value of that farm is greatly depreciated.

I do not give that as my own opinion, because it has been expressed in a decision of the Land Court. And they also stated there that apparently it was not a favourite investment for lenders. The point really comes to this, that when the small holding is created on a small estate very likely the mortgagee forecloses and there is a forced sale at a ruinous price, and the individual is ruined. In many cases it will not only be the contribution that the individual would make to this thing, but far more, because, if there is a forced sale, he may lose all that he has to live on. What we contend for is the broad principle that if anything is taken for the good of the country a fair price should be paid for it, and I think on the face of the clause it cannot be denied that a certain portion of that price—whether small or large, does not I think matter very much—has to be paid by the individual from whom the land is taken.

Amendment moved— Page 6, lines 36 to 40, leave out paragraph (ii).—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD SHAW

I am surprised at, and I very much regret, the action of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, because I happen to know the history of this question pretty much from the beginning, having been largely concerned with the drafting of the original Act which, I think, appeared in Parliament in 1908–9, but which culminated in the legislation of 1911. The passage of that Act through the Grand Committees of the House of Commons was extremely heavily contested from day to day and from week to week, and the time came when it was necessary, if possible, to make a supreme effort to compromise the position of parties, in this sense, that they would combine to make an experimental clause of the kind which is contained in the Act of 1911.

I think much of the lack of success of that Act has arisen from that compromise because the scheme of compensation—and, if I venture to mention the subject, it is with real anxiety—set up by the Act of 1911 was to all intents and purposes unprecedented in this country. Compensation was given in respect of the letting value of the land to be occupied by the new holder, or of any farm of which the land formed a part, or to any tenant in respect that the land formed part of the whole of his tenancy, or to any land in respect of an obligation to take over sheep stock at a valuation; and then come these fatal words— or in respect of any depreciation in the value of the estate of which the land forms part in consequence of, and attributable to, the now holdings. Parliament is not unacquainted with this subject of injurious affection of land. Since the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, and The Lands Clauses Act of the same year Parliament has been well acquainted with the fact that there must be a payment, not only for the land taken, but for the injurious affection of land or buildings in the immediate proximity of which buildings a part is taken, and a part only, under the scheme.

With regard to the land, as apart from the buildings, all the ambit of the extensions beyond the part actually taken is where there has been half an acre of land (I think it is) extra which is cut off from communication with the outside part of the estate. But the scheme of compensation introduced by the Act of 1911 was so vast that not only was the compensation to be given in respect of the land taken, in respect of the farm or which it was a part, but in respect of the entire estate of which that part of that farm was a part. I say that in principle, if that had been the law of this country applicable to railways or applicable to great undertakings under which a settlement is made under the Lands Clauses Act, the industry of this country and its transport would have been sterilised, and we should have had no progress made until a scheme of that kind had been destroyed.

Not long after this Act came into effect there was the case to which my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch has referred. How serious the matter is your Lordships will understand from the observation I am now going to make. The land taken in that case was part of a little estate of 3,000 acres—800 acres were taken. There was compensation to be reckoned under the Act, and the compensation in the first place was by reference to the letting value of the land taken. It was found by the arbitrator (as we call him in the North) that there was no loss whatever in the letting value of the land because, upon a comparison of the existing rent of the 800 acres with the new rents to be obtained under the scheme, the landlord was to be the gainer by about £23 a year, I think. Then buildings were compensated for on a very large scale to the extent of £3,800; fencing was compensated for, and also manures; then there were certain holdings remaining unlet—the whole amounting to about £4,000. Then came this clause. What was the arbitrator to do as to valuing the injury to the remainder of the estate? Will your Lordships believe that what the arbitrator gave under this clause was no less a sum than £4,600.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I think that included everything—the farm buildings, and so on.

LORD SHAW

No, not at all. That is the shocking thing about it. I myself could hardly believe it, but to-day I went to verify it, and the noble Duke may take my word for it as I have gone into the original papers in the action. Here are the figures: For buildings, £3,740; fencing, £19; manures, £118; for holdings remaining unlet,£109. That comes altogether to £3,986. Then on top of that came this item, and this is thus named by the arbitrator, who himself was apparently a little shocked by it because he catalogued it "secondly," and then he proceeded to divide it up and paved the way for Courts of Law to say whether that was reasonably competent under the Act. This is his language in respect of loss—this is over and above the £3,986—caused by depreciation in the value of the estate in consequence of that attributable to the constitution of the new holding; that is to say, this landlord got £4,600 in respect of the prospective and conjectural value of a difference between having an estate with small holdings on it and an estate without small holdings on it. That was actually given. It almost looks like a direct attack upon Parliament itself by the landlord saying: "Stand and deliver" in so much money because that land is to be devoted to the very purposes for which Parliament passed the Act.

I know what your Lordships will say in reply to me: Is it not right when the value of an estate is affected as, for instance, when the shootings are affected injuriously, that there should be a payment for that in addition to the payment for the land taken? Or, is it not right that severance may be taken into account? Many of your Lordships are much more expert in these matters than I am, but you know that in all these cases severance is an important consideration. Is it not right, you will say, that management—that is to say, the difference between splitting up the management of an estate, part of it under the Government and part of it in the man's own hands—and all these things should be taken into account?

It seems like a fairy tale. But the arbitrator saw the thing himself, and he differentiated his figures and said: Of the £4,600 which is to be given for damage to the value of the estate, and to the shootings, the compensation for severance and for division of management, I do value that. The sum of these three things put together, which is almost as much as imagination could conceive, is £750, and therefore the remaining sum, says he, is £3,850 in addition to shootings, severance, management, land taken, and all the rest.

In respect of this clause in the Act "Depreciation in the value of the estate," had the like been dreamed of under the Lands Clauses Act or the undertakings under it, or under the Railways Clauses Act and all the undertakings under it, it would have stopped industry in this country and prevented anything being done. That is the instance which has occurred, and what this Bill says in this proviso is that that instance shall be taken out. It says compensation shall not include any compensation for injury done or depreciation in the selling value of the estate. Then comes an exception as to which I have the greatest doubt myself "except in so far as the same arises by injury done or by depreciation in the letting value of the land or estate." That is an extremely generous and extremely large departure from anything that could have been done under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845. But, my Lords, assuming that is so, here is depreciation which is not to include depreciation in the letting value of the land or of the whole estate. What more can any man want than that? The landlord will be left exactly in the position that the commercial value of the subject which is being disposed of will not only be recouped to him, but there will be completely recouped to him every commercial factor which went to deplete the value of the remainder of the estate. I am only anxious upon this subject. It matters little to me what the House decides with regard to any trivial matter, but this is not a trivial matter. This case is a concrete illustra- tion of the thing which has marked the history of land legislation in Scotland, and marked it as a failure, because it is impossible for land to be acquired either by individual small holders or by any public Board on terms so extraordinary as those I have described. It is desired that that difficulty, which has made all this land legislation a failure, shall be removed and for ever.

I will now ask your Lordships to consider what was done in the House of Commons. We have now a Coalition Government. No more astute ally of my noble friends opposite exists in the House of Commons than Sir George Younger. He was present at all the debates in Committee on this Bill. Not one Amendment, so far as my recollection serves, was made in the extreme sense of that of the noble Duke, because every man on both sides of the House, and the Parties in the Coalition, realise fully that to reinstate in this Bill the selling value of the entire estate as a matter of compensation would ruin the measure once and for all. Then we come to Report. Not one Amendment was moved there. All parties accepted the clause in this form. There were various suggestions for amendment with regard to other particulars, but none in regard to this. I do ask your Lordships to pause before wrecking this measure. I think it means the wrecking of the measure; I do honestly and sincerely. I think it is impossible that this measure can ever have the success which a measure for giving access to land can have, if this Amendment is insisted upon.

Since the Act of 1911 was passed that illustration has occurred. But another thing has also happened, which ought seriously to weigh with your Lordships. Soldiers and sailors are returning, and in Scotland there are no nobler men who went to the war than those who are now returning. They wish to have access to the land. They do not desire to have access to the land on unfair terms, but they desire to have it under a Bill in which this wrecking element shall not occur. If this element is insisted upon then that access for soldiers and sailors is denied by this House—not by the Coalition Government I am glad to think, not by any Party in the House of Commons, but by a section of your Lordships' House. I hope your Lordships will not think I am over-rating the value of the Amendment, but I conclude with an appeal to your Lordships to reconsider your attitude towards the Amendment, which is fatal to the efficacy of the Bill.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I am sure we have been interested in what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, and I shall be prepared to deal with the shocking case he has raised. I should like first to say that in my opinion this is the most objectionable part in the Bill. We are in favour of the Bill and most anxious to get men who have served in the trenches on to the land, if they wish to go there and we can train them to it; but we do not see why it should be necessary to tack on to a Land Bill for soldiers a principle which has never been in any Bill before. This is absolutely germane to other species of property. It may be our turn at the present moment, but if later on it is the turn of noble Lords opposite I shall not be sorry if they do not help us to-day. It is for that reason that I hope noble Lords will judge the question from the point of view of the principle involved rather than as part of a Scottish Land Bill, no matter how desirable the measure might otherwise be. It may jeopardise the Bill but only if certain people are obstinate enough to make it so. There is no reason why it should jeopardise the Bill; it has nothing to do with the objects of the measure.

We must admit that in a sense no subject has any rights at all; but he has many privileges as a citizen. There is the protection of his life and his property as long as he behaves himself and is engaged in a lawful pursuit. We accept that in a civilised community. We also realise that the Government may take anything from any individual for the purposes of the State, and unless it is directly stated that compensation is to be paid then we understand that there will be no compensation. In other words the Law is supreme. If the Law chooses to allow injustice to be done, or commits unconstitutional actions, such as is proposed in this Bill of depriving citizens of their legitimate pursuits and the results of their enterprise, then the whole fabric comes down. In this case we have an individual who has property of an undoubted value, and the State, which is supposed to maintain the rights of property, wishing to acquire the property which it admits is being used for the best possible benefit of the community. Surely that is not fair.

The principle of the Bill is that property shall be acquired at a valuation, and that due compensation shall be paid. That is admitted by Lord Shaw. The purchaser, however, has no right to say that he will pay the cheaper part of the compensation and will not pay the expensive part. The attitude of the arbiter in this case is quite clear, and it was ably summed up by Lord Shaw in the shocking case to which he referred. Some of us remember "the shocking case," and also remember the splendid defence made by the noble and learned Lord himself in that case. Indeed it was due to him and Lord Haldane that exactly the opposite was carried to that which is proposed in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord may remember his words. They made a strong impression upon me at the time, and I have refreshed my memory since. He was talking about the arbiter. He was strongly in favour of many things, including the sentimental value. He said "In my humble judgment—

LORD SHAW

I was interpreting the Act of Parliament and showing that that Act would include all kinds of things like sentimental value and all the rest, and it is another question whether such a token of value should remain on the Statute Book.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I agree with the noble and learned Lord and therefore want to quote what he said— In my humble judgment an arbiter has nothing to do with the quality of the objections which either raise or depress market values. The one equally with the other he does not inspect the quality of. He assesses the pecuniary result. That is really our point. The noble and learned Lord went on to say— These sentimental objections matter nothing one way or another except as they affect the price to be realised. We thank the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he put the matter on that occasion. Here we find a particular Department of the Government, whose duty it is among other things to purchase land for small holdings, deliberately admitting the value and refusing to pay for it. In plain English, this is brigandage and nothing else. If the Government deliberately embark on this line of policy then nothing is safe in the way of property and it is difficult to blame individuals who, possibly from want, or possibly from baser motives, act in the same way. The noble and learned Lord is a Judge and knows how he would deal with an individual who acted as the Government propose to act and I cannot see any difference between a burglar and a Government if they both do the same thing. In ordinary life, if you cannot pay for a thing you have to do without it. In this particular instance the Government have not even the excuse we see in many cases, that they are improving the well-being of the community. They are stirring up endless opposition to a scheme which if it is to be successful should have the cooperation of all men. I assure the noble Lord that we all desire to promote in every way the success of this scheme.

It has been said tentatively, and I think even considered by the Secretary for Scotland, that an owner should exercise his claim within a limited number of years, by selling the estate, when he should be given the balance due for capital value. I absolutely disagree. I consider he should be given the full value of what he is deprived, when the deal is made in the first instance. Lord Haldane puts it in a nutshell. He also was one of the judges in the case. He stated in the same way— It is true that the arbiter has also said that the landlord has no intention of selling, but what of that? According to the principles which are so well settled in this House and other Courts, when you make a claim of this kind you must make your claim once for all. If hereafter damage emerges from the same cause, for which therefore you might have claimed, you cannot claim again. That is good law and good sense, and I cannot understand why His Majesty's Government should wish to depart from it. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will explain. I also believe that the view advanced by the Scottish Office is that if you put property in the market you do not get a fair valuation. It is very difficult to know any fairer method of getting to know the true value of an article. After all the market price is a criterion at the moment. But it is very difficult for noble Lords on this side to know what to do when the Government itself does not know what to do. I am a supporter of the Government—except on this. You find one Department of the Government doing exactly the opposite to what another Department does. You find one great Department of the State when dealing with Lord Rosebery the other day offering for disposal that which was not their own property and advancing the argument in justification that it was really only a bogus sale in which they were trying to find out the true value by a sale in the open market, that being the only way of assessing the true value. Yet when we suggest that the market value should be taken the Scottish Office say that the market value is unfair and improper. On the other hand as I have just pointed out you have another Department saying that is the only way of arriving at the true value. We say exactly the same in the case of other Departments. At the present moment I believe there is a small war going on between two dusky Potentates in the East, one financed by one Department and the other financed by another Department of the Government. In very much the same way we see proprietors mulcted by the Inland Revenue. The noble and learned Lord will admit that in arriving at the death duties the capital value of land is taken into consideration. The noble Lord nods and I assume he agrees. If it is good for death duties why is it not good in the case which I am putting when an assessment has to be made of the value of land taken. When one has paid ones death duties there is no earthly reason why the Land Court and its minions should not step in and refuse to pay the capital sum which the other Government Department has a short time before assessed for the purpose of death duties. That is an impossible situation and it is dishonourable. We have all heard about honour rooted in dishonour, and I cannot myself see how you can possibly have justice based upon injustice. For that reason I support the noble Duke.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, it would be idle to conceal that the Amendment which has been moved is likely to present a most serious cause of difference between the Government and noble Lords who are here to-night to give expression to their views. I do not underrate the importance of the discussion, though I a little regret the language in which in one, I think, uncompleted sentence the noble Duke said to his colleagues, speaking for a large number of Peers in Scotland "It is our turn to-day. I hope other noble Lords will help us now."

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I did not intend it quite in that way. What I hoped to say was that I trusted the lesson would not be lost on noble Lords whose own turn might come another day to be deprived of a commodity.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am much too old a friend of the noble Duke's for many years now in another House to develop any criticism at all on any language he uses the moment he says he did not mean it in the sense in which I took it. But I must, I confess, ask your Lordships to go with great care into this Amendment. It is an Amendment which in my judgment is really destructive of the practical success of the Bill, and yet it is one of those Amendments which, of all others, are the most difficult to criticise and to oppose, because it can undoubtedly be defended with a plausibility which is not altogether superficial. I would ask that the history of the question raised by this Amendment should be considered a little attentively, because in relation to Scotland this is a matter which requires some degree of historical treatment. And I am bound to make an observation in this connection upon the criticisms which the noble Duke made with reference to the contribution to this debate of my noble and learned friend Lord Shaw. I know that the noble Duke is not a lawyer—he will thank me for this testimonial. But when he says as against my noble and learned friend that, sitting as a Judge on the Act of 1911, which it is our expressed purpose in this Bill to amend, he gave certain decisions and reached certain conclusions, and then cites these as if they involved my noble and learned friend in any definite individual opinion, at a period when the one object of this Bill is to alter those very conclusions of law upon which my noble and learned friend was pronouncing, it is really an argument to which I think, with a little more reflection, my noble friend would not have committed himself.

But with regard to the history, I hope to build up a case which will satisfy your Lordships of this, and I do not desire to put it too high. I do not desire to put it so high as this, that the landlords of Scotland have no cause of complaint under these proposals. But while I make that admission, I say that they have no greater cause of complaint than many landlords in England have had now for nearly forty years under the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act. So in all these great public reforms cases arise in which individuals suffer. And believe me, it is a mistake, and it is certainly a mistake in this House to put it too much as if it was a matter of principle. Let us rather argue it out in this way. Where great national ends are common ends, where everybody admits that certain conclusions must be gained, are we or are we not pressing unduly upon a single class?—are we or are we not asking a single class to make a sacrifice which, under all the circumstances of the case, must be pronounced excessive?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Do the Lands Clauses Acts apply to this?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No Certainly not. But I was trying to point out that under the Lands Clauses Acts if, for instance, a railway intervened in the estate of a noble Lord, comparable sacrifices were compensated for in a manner analogous to that which is recommended in this Bill.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

If a railway took land it would pay for it. In this case it would not.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

But if a railway took land, no doubt they would pay for it under the terms of compensation provided in this Bill, but they would not pay for it on the terms, or anything like the terms, or on the principle, to which my noble friend has called attention; and it was one of the most scandalous applications of the principles of the Act of 1911 of which I am aware, and indeed it was an application of those principles which made those principles bankrupt, and which has produced these proposals to amend them, which—I would remind the noble Duke—have been received with extraordinary public support from all classes in Scotland.

Let me now come back to the history of it. The tenure of the small landholder in Scotland, as it stands to-day, has grown directly out of the crofter's tenure under the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act of 1886. That is the first landmark in the history of this question. That Act gave to the crofter in the crofting counties security of tenure at a fair rent which was to be fixed, failing agreement, by the Crofters Commission. The Crofters Commission were the predecessors of the present Land Court, and many of your Lordships are familiar with their activities. The arrangement under that Act was subject to revision every seven years, and a statutory tenure was thus substituted for a tenure by agreement. I am speaking in the presence of many noble Lords who, by their circumstances and their history, have had great experience of the crofting conditions, and they will tell me whether I am right or wrong when I say that the rent roll under that legislation not only suffered but suffered very considerably. The Scottish landowners at that period received no compensation, and so far as I am aware they asked for no compensation.

It may be said in answer that this is not a true analogy; it may be said that Parliament imposed no new tenants upon him and put none of his land to a new use. I have heard the argument used that it revived, and in a sense stereotyped in the public interest, the existing contracts between the landlord and his existing crofter tenants. But that does not conclude the matter. While the Act of 1886 did not provide for the creation of new crofts, it did provide for the compulsory enlargement of existing crofts—a very analogous case to that which we are discussing to-night; and here, again, the landlord received no compensation whatever for loss in either selling or letting value. The only compensation payable in respect of enlargements was to the agricultural or sporting tenant of the land taken. Under the Act of 1886 more than 72,000 acres—including, I would ask your Lordships to remember, portions of deer forests—were assigned for enlargements by the Crofters Commission before the 1911 Act came into force, without one penny of compensation being paid to landowners. And this loss or injury—if indeed it is to be called a loss or injury—fell not on all landlords alike but only on those landlords whose lands were assigned.

Then came the 1911 Act. When noble Lords say, as they say with perfect truth, that this Bill gives them less than was given by the 1911 Act, let them clearly understand the attitude which we assume in relation to that Act. It is true that we propose less under this Bill. Under circumstances of imperious public necessity known to everyone, under the stimulus of objects which are admitted by noble Lords in every part of the House to be demanded at this moment by every consideration of public duty and obligation, it has been decided that arrangements must be made under which far greater facilities may be swiftly and immediately provided for the settlement of soldiers upon the land. Then we had to ask ourselves this question— Can we really claim that it is within our power to make those settlements if we adhere to the conditions of the 1911 Act? Not one expert who has advised us has told us that it is in our power to make the arrangements which everyone admits to be required, and to be required now, if we adhere to the principles which have been proved to be unworkable, to be unjust, to be unfair to the general taxpayer, and which were most disastrously adopted by the Act of 1911.

My Lords, let me for a moment remind you of the provisions of the Act of 1911. It began by converting a large number of existing tenants into small holders. For this it provided no compensation to the landlord, treating it in this respect just as the 1886 Act had done. Section 7 of the Act of 1911, which must be carefully borne in mind in this discussion, provided for the constitution of new small holdings, and therefore was the comparable section to the relevant section in this Bill and to the section equivalent to the Crofts Section of the Act of 1886. It contains a very general compensation provision which covers loss in selling value as well as in letting value. In order that your Lordships may be apprised of the whole of the circumstances under Section 16, this applied to enlargements also.

The whole question in debate to-night is whether the provision of Section 7 of the 1911 Act ought to have been stereotyped and applied in the proposals which are now before this House. I must point out, to begin with, that no Amendment was ever proposed in the House of Commons anything like approaching that which the noble Duke has proposed tonight. There are many Scottish Members representing all parties in the House of Commons fully acquainted with the history of this matter, able and willing to make any reasonable protest which the stability and protection of property might seem to render reasonable, but no Amendment like this was proposed. In the House of Commons an Amendment was moved to omit all the words of the paragraph after "part," in order to exclude land selling value altogether. That Amendment was opposed by the Secretary of State and on a Division it was defeated, not by a Committee of unintelligent and uninformed Englishmen, but by the Scottish Committee. It was put down again, but it was not even moved. But at no stage in the House of Commons was it proposed, as is now done, to omit the paragraph altogether.

Whatever other Amendments may require consideration, I cannot think that the noble Duke would desire that his name should go down in the history of this controversy as having for the first time—no such attempt having been made in the House of Commons—moved that this provision should be omitted altogether. The Amendment was pat down by Sir George Younger, and I agree entirely with what my noble and learned friend has said that no more astute adviser, no more kindly and assiduous friend of all the legitimate interests of the great land-owners of Scotland could be found No man has a more perfect and complete comprehension of what is practicable and obtainable in the House of Commons and of the means by which alone the essential objects of the Government, as shared by noble Lords, can be obtained. Sir George Younger moved an Amendment to which I desire your Lordships' careful attention. He moved both in Committee and on Report a proviso to the effect that on actual sale of the land within five years after the creation of small holdings, thereupon the landlord should have a claim for actual loss of selling value as shown by the price obtained. I conceive Sir George Younger's object to have been this. I imagine that he was pressed as any noble Lord who gives attention to this matter will be, by what I really must call the scandal of the arbitrations that have been held under the Act of 1911.

The case made, and plainly made, on the Second Reading of this Bill can be summarised almost in a single sentence. It was this—Under the terms of this Bill you only give us compensation for letting value. That is incomplete and unfair compensation, because it may be that we have not sustained at the moment any real loss under the head of letting value, but if we have to sell in the circumstances of small holdings super-imposed on our estates, we have sustained a real loss under the head of selling value. That was the case made here on Second Reading.

Let me tell those of your Lordships who are not so familiar as noble Lords from Scotland how the matter has in fact been dealt with between the year 1911 and to-day, in order that it may be determined by the House as a whole whether the system which has prevailed during that period is one which can, on its merits, be defended, or whether it is one which any thoughtful friend of landlords, either in Scotland or England, would be deeply concerned to protect or to recommend. Arbitration after arbitration has been held under the Act of 1911. In these cases the claimants were Scottish landlords, upon whose estates small holdings were established. They came forward and they said, under the terms of the 1911 Act, "We affirm that the selling value of our estate has been diminished, and inasmuch as it has been diminished, here and now we claim to receive compensation." And they had not the slightest intention of selling their estates. They have not sold their estates to this day. There has not been in the majority of the cases at this moment in my mind any single indication that they ever intend to sell them. Yet they have recovered from arbitral tribunals thousands and thousands of pounds of compensation upon grounds founded upon the most flimsy hypotheses which in my experience have ever been offered to the consideration and judgment of an arbitrator.

If I may inform your Lordships, this is the kind of evidence. An expert witness comes—I have on previous occasions expressed some of my opinions and stated some of my experiences of expert witnesses—and says, "Here is this estate. I find that upon it there are twelve small holdings. I believe that the purchaser would have given £40,000 for that estate if these small holdings had not been placed upon it, and my opinion is that the purchaser would not give more than £30,000 for it now." And with no appreciable or provable inquiry to an estate, of which the landlord has not divested himself and of which there is no reason to believe he ever intended to divest himself, these enormous and swollen verdicts have been given by arbitrators. Not only did this happen in the case referred to by the noble and learned Lord, but, unfortunately, it has become a kind of precedent. The next arbitrator says that was the principle in the case of so-and-so, and £8,000 or £9,000 was given; and so one case succeeds another until the situation has been reached in which I say plainly—and plain, though I hope entirely inoffensive language is desirable in this matter—in which those who are best qualified to judge have advised those who are responsible for introducing the Bill that if the methods of compensation adopted under the 1911 Act are to be maintained and applied to all cases of compensation under this Bill, the Bill cannot be made an effective measure in Scotland. If we had reached the conclusion that what was provided by the Act of 1911 was defensible in itself then, if we could not justify the course we propose in this Bill, it might be necessary to reach the conclusion, melancholy as the conclusion would be, that some other line of approach must be attempted. But when we have reached the conclusion that no sufficient justification can be made for the principle of compensation which was adopted in the Act of 1911, it can hardly be expected that we should acquiesce in the destruction, as we conceive it, of our present proposals by a perpetuation of the provisions of the Act of 1911 which have been riddled with abuse in Scotland and elsewhere.

I was dealing with Sir George Younger's alternative proposal. It will be readily conceded that that proposal at least dealt with the scandal of large sums of compensation being awarded to landlords who did not sell, and whose claim to be treated on the basis of selling value was not obvious. It was resisted in the House of Commons upon grounds which cannot be lightly dismissed. In the first place it was resisted on the ground that it would be extremely difficult to estimate how much, if any, of the loss was due to the existence of the small holding. I do not regard that as a fatal objection, for this reason, that all arbitrators have to face difficulties which are really almost as great as that which I have indicated. The Tribunal is a finite one and the methods which they must employ are finite too. While some weight must be given to it is not a serious argument. The most serious objection to the proposal of Sir G. Younger is this—that it is absolutely essential that the compensation should be ascertained once for all when the scheme is made, in order that the Board may know the cost and decide whether to proceed with the scheme or abandon it. If there are contingent liabilities at a given moment it would certainly impede the activities of the Board.

These considerations were pointed out in connection with the moderate amend- ment of Sir G. Younger. They were pointed out in the House of Commons, and as a result Sir G. Younger withdrew his amendment I cannot help thinking that the experience in the House of Commons indicated a general, and in my judgment a justifiable feeling that unrestricted compensation for injury to selling value, though it was provided for in the Act of 1911, has proved to be a mistake, and is now indefensible. It results in compensation for every loss actually sustained, plus compensation for loss which might never be suffered at all. Certainly in some cases, noble Lords for Scotland will not deny it, the landlord may be richer than he was before. It would be unfortunate if any such claim should be made in relation to a Bill which is in redemption of war pledges, and which everyone supported, not only with the language of the tongue but with the language of the heart. In arguing this difficult case I hope I have said nothing to reflect upon the well known desire of noble Lords who directly represent Scottish interests to contribute even by great sacrifices to that which the national interests require. I earnestly impress upon them that the view is taken that if anything like the. Amendment of the noble Duke is accepted, the Bill becomes a Bill which it is impossible to press forward with any hope that it will attain the objects proposed to itself by the Government. I know how dear to the hearts of noble Lords are the objects of this Bill. And while any alternative proposal which the ingenuity of noble Lords or of their advisers may suggest will be considered with the respect that their origin would require, I can only tell the noble Duke that the omission of this subsection would in my view be regarded by the Government as a fatal objection to the progress of this Bill.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My Lords, let us see how we stand in this very complicated and important matter. All of us, without exception, wish to help the Government to fulfil the national pledge of putting on the land the men who fought for us. If my noble friends from Scotland claim anything more than has been given under similar conditions in England I certainly am not going to support them, but they surely are entitled to an absolutely fair price for any property taken from them for any national purpose; and the Prime Minister himself has laid it down as one of the corner stones of his policy that although he will take for the nation what the nation requires, he is always going to pay a fair price for it. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that unless the Bill we have before us is passed very much in its present form the purpose of settling these men on the land in Scotland cannot be carried out. But is that so, my Lords? It is going to be carried out in England, and this difficulty does not arise in England. What is the whole cause of this difficulty in Scotland? In England the State can either buy land or hire land. In both those cases the Lands Clauses Acts come into operation, and if there is injurious affection it is taken into account either in the purchase price or in the rent paid for compulsorily hired land. I do not suppose that my noble friends from Scotland ask for anything more than that. The whole point is that the Lands Clauses Acts do not come into operation in the case of this particular plan adopted for Scotland. The State says "We want to put soldiers on the land." The State can buy the land. You say that in this case it is difficult to raise more money and the State will not buy the land, but the State can hire land. That will cost the State no capital sum. Instead of which, for some reason which is perfectly unintelligible to Englishmen, the late Government adopted this plan of neither buying nor hiring but placing compulsory tenants on an unwilling landlord and insisting upon his keeping the land and making those tenants his own. To us Englishmen it seems a perfectly preposterous plan, and Lord Shaw told us that the clause, which he drew, Clause 11, turned out to be a very bad one.

LORD SHAW

I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I did not draw it. I had the honour of being a member of your Lordships' House before the clause came into existence. I was referring to a previous Act.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Then somebody, the then Liberal Law Officer for Scotland, drew a very bad clause—and then the Lord Chancellor tells us practically that every arbiter in Scotland is unfit for his post. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend really wished us to infer that.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I said nothing of the kind. I said that two decisions had been given under this Act which had undoubtedly occasioned the greatest possible anxiety and had shown that if this principle contained in Section 7 of the 1911 Act were persevered in it would prevent this Act being possible. I never made any general reflection on the arbitrators.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

If the noble Lord, Lord Shaw's account, which I thought was entirely endorsed by my noble and learned friend opposite, is accurate I cannot call the arbitrator a good arbitrator.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I had the arbitrations in my mind, both of which are well known to the noble Earl, before I spoke. The arbitrators in these were profoundly wrong and unfortunately they have been followed in other cases.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I am not at all sure then that I exaggerated if profoundly wrong decisions be given by two arbitrators and all the others have followed their example. These arbitrators are I understand appointed by the Court of Session, and I would have thought that the Court of Session would have appointed fit men for such responsible work. If the wording so unfortunately adopted by some Scottish law officer whose name I forget and which was not Lord Shaw has had these disastrous effects there might be an argument for amendment, but I can see no argument for entirely depriving the unfortunate landowner of what may be a very important part of his property. The Government are founding their position on a hard case and Lord Shaw has laid great stress on the Lindean case, in fact this sub-clause is founded on the Lindean case. I am only an Englishman and it is quite by accident that I happened to come across this information the other day. But I have been reading very assiduously the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Agriculture, and I came across this given in cross-examination by the representative of the Scottish Farmers' Union. I had never heard of the case before. It was the case of Lord Elibank's estate and Lord Elibank had a lot of these tenants imposed upon him by a Scottish Land Court or Board of Agriculture. Lord Elibank said that he did not want to be the landlord of these tenants and he would therefore sell his land. The land is in the Lothians, and what do your Lordships think that this part of the estate sold for? Ten years purchase of the land. No one could possibly have thought that ten years purchase was the value of this land before it had been taken for this purpose. Therefore there is a real case to be met here. I do not think that it is met in the best way by this Amendment. I am, however, not competent to form an opinion on that subject and I rather gathered by several of the sentences of my noble and leaned friend the Lord Chancellor that he was not quite comfortable about the wording of the Act as it stands. If, the only choice we have is between the Amendment of my noble friend and the non possumus of the government, I shall certainly vote for my noble friend.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

My noble friend, Lord Selborne alluded to the case of Ballencrieff. I think I am correct in saying that the tenant was offered £25,000 for the farm, and that when it was sold the total realised by him, including compensation, came to £20,500, so that he had a loss of £4,500. I would point out that this does not affect Part I of the Bill, which is the principal part for settling soldiers it only affects Part II.

But we have unofficially made certain suggestions to the Government with which I understand they will proceed. We were quite willing to do anything we could so as to give a reasonable security to those whose land is going to be taken, and if possible to prevent any abuse, assuming—which I do not quite admit—that there has been any abuse, as stated by my noble and learned friend opposite (Lord Shaw). The case I allude to is the Kinnenhall case, in which the Land Court stated that, owing to the property being turned into small holdings, they awarded three years purchase. There is no doubt there is a loss of value in this, and all that we want is that that value should be met, and if an Amend-merit could be suggested by the Government I am sure that those on this side of the House will be very pleased to consider it and do what we can to meet the Government.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I would ask your Lordships to remember that the history of the question, as I attempted shortly to describe it, shows quite plainly that a difference of system has been adopted as between the law applicable to English land and the law applicable to Scots land, and it is quite possible to point to cases in which you can show divergencies of practice, and even occasionally the appearances of hardship in relation to the one system which cannot be discovered in the other. For instance, there are Many cases in England in which you have compulsory leasing, and no compensation is payable on the selling value, although the property is considerably depreciated. And you must consider each system separately. I have no claim to be a great authority on Scots law or the history of Scots law, but I am advised by those who are very competent to give advice in such matters, and I am not at all sure—to take the only specific case which my noble friend Lord Selborne put to me, the case of Lord Elibank—I am not at all sure that the noble Earl has sufficiently considered his facts in regard to that matter.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I read the facts in the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Agriculture.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am informed on the subject by those who took a very prominent part in the proceedings. I am sure that what the noble Earl read was accurately stated, according to his memory, but I am informed by one who had very intimate sources of knowledge that nobody ever did better than Lord Elibank as the result of those proceedings. I am informed that Lord Elibank received compensation for his buildings, received damages to compensate him for depreciation by reason of that which had happened, and and in addition received ten years purchase If I am well informed upon that, the whole edifice of the argument raised by the noble Lord upon that case is dissipated and destroyed. I should not have thought it right to state this view of the facts if it had not been given to me by one who is entitled to consider himself an authority upon the matter.

The Amendment of the noble Duke is one which we cannot and will not accept. It is, in my judgment, one which would be rejected by an overwhelming majority of the noble Duke's countrymen in the House of Commons. I should profoundly regret if your Lordships persevered with it, but that does not in the least mean that the Government would not be prepared to consider less extreme proposals if they can only be framed and formulated, and if they will not destroy—as we are convinced that this will destroy—the whole hope and prospect of this Bill.

LORD LOVAT

Although I do not accept one or two of the facts mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, what he has said evidently shows a wish to reconsider the situation, and I have advised the noble Duke, rather than divide upon this question at this time, to formulate certain proposals for the next stage of the Bill. It is a question who should be the ones to bring forward these proposals. I think we have heard enough to show that it is admitted on the other side of the House that in certain cases a definite hardship occurs. I think there is not the least question that, when a sale actually takes place, something between three and live years purchase of the land has to be stood by the proprietor. I myself would urge that the proposal should come from the other side, but if it does not I would suggest that the noble Duke withdraws his Amendment and makes a proposal before we get to the next stage on the general lines of what has been brought forward.

LORD LAMINGTON

It is a question of principle. It. is almost impossible now to devise some Amendment, except that which the noble and learned Lord has seen on the Table, which would be a compromise that the selling value should be only in respect of the land actually taken and not in regard to the estate lying outside the scheme. It would be a compromise with regard to amount but not as regards principle. I hope that the noble Duke will adhere to his Amendment unless the Government compromise on those terms. The lairds will be hit under these proposals, and it is not fair that we should make our decision solely on the question of the large landowners being affected.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I want to say what I think would be a convenient course to adopt. The argument on this Amendment has now proceeded for a considerable time, and I am convinced that upon the case submitted my noble friends who represent Scotland have established their case, therefore in my judgment your Lordships would do well to insert the Amendment in the Bill. But there is no doubt that the noble and learned Lord has intimated that he has certain doubts. Supposing that between now and the Report stage an arrangement can possibly be come to upon other lines—though I myself do not see what other lines are possible—then a modification may be hereafter introduced; but as it appears, on the arguments submitted to your Lordships, that the noble Lords from Scotland have established their case, if they go to a Division I shall certainly support them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will only say this. If it be the fact, as the noble Marquess has inferred from the debate, that on the discussion which has taken place noble Lords are right and the Government are wrong, and if it also be the proper inference from the debate that it is for the Government, realising that noble Lords have been right and we are wrong, to make an alternative proposal, I for one should think it wrong to persuade the noble Duke to withdraw his Amendment under any such delusion.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not suggest that there should be any

obligation on the noble and learned Lord, but it may appear that some other arrangement is possible. I do not put the Government under any obligation.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I could not possibly undertake such a responsibility because, like the noble Marquess, I am at present not able to suggest an alternative to the proposal of the noble Duke. The noble Lord sitting behind the noble Marquess has handed in a manuscript Amendment to which I have given such consideration as I can I would not dismiss it as not deserving of consideration, but, while I have been either making or listening to speeches, I have not been able to give it full consideration. So far as the Amendment of the noble Duke is concerned, nothing is to be gained by postponing difficulties and the solution of difficulties. It is one to which the Government will never willingly assent. If the House thinks it worth while to postpone the difficulty by the withdrawal of the Amendment—well, if not, I think the House had better take its course.

On Question, whether paragraph (ii), proposed to be left out, shall stand part of the Clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23; Not Contents, 42.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)	Meston, L.
	Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Ranksborough, L.
Bradford, E.	Peel, V.	Rathcreedan, L.
Chesterfield, E.		Shaw, L.
Curzon of Kedleston, E.	Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)	Sinha, L.
Lytton, E.	Clwyd, L.	Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Onslow, E.	Colebrooke, L.	Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Hylton, L.	Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
	Lee of Fareham, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Argyll, D.	Churchill, V.	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Portland, D.	Falkland, V.	Gisborough, L.
		Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Ampthill, L.	Harris, L.
Linlithgow, M.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Hindlip, L.
Salisbury, M.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
		Lamington, L. [Teller.]
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) [Teller.]	Clinton, L.	Lovat, L.
	Cottesloe, L.	Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Malmesbury, E.	Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Ebury, L.	Ruthven of Gowrie, L.
Selborne, E.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Saltoun, L.
Strafford, E.		Sandys, L.
Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)	Elphinstone, L.	Tweedmouth, L.
	Erskine, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Chaplin, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Wolverton, L.
		Wyfold, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (ii) (b), to leave out paragraph (iii). The noble Duke said: This is a difficult subsection to understand. To put it shortly it really means that you are not giving compensation if the land is full of stock. But supposing it is not fully stocked or a part of it is not fully stocked they will only give compensation as if it had been fully stocked, and this although the fact that you have not stocked your land fully is a distinct advantage to the district, and although it results in keeping a far greater population in the district, and is better for the rates. I would remind noble Lords that the rating question is a very serious question in the North, and an intolerable burden would also point out that I have had to move the rejection of the whole of this paragraph because I could not think of or invent a new paragraph which would meet the views of noble Lords opposite. I only wish they had put forward a proposal before to-day which we would have been able to consult and agree upon; but the Government will not put out a right hand in any shape or form. Therefore there was no other course except to move the excision of this objectionable paragraph.

I wish to make it clear, however, that I am absolutely in favour of doing away with deer forests which should never have existed and the existence of which is detrimental to the populace. They are only doing harm from every point of view. To justify a deer forest it must not displace people, there must be as many healthy families on it as could be employed if it were used for other purposes, and it must produce a reasonable amount of meat in comparison with the amount of meat which would be produced if the land were used for agricultural purposes. I am prepared to go a very long way with noble Lords but where a deer forest in comparison with a sheep farm offers an overwhelming advantage to the rates it is most unjust to the poor people who are groaning under the burden of the rates that they should have to make good the deficit due to an uneconomic fad—more especially when you recollect that the people who are to be planted on the land are not going to bear their share of the burden of the rates. I should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have realised that there were enough difficulties in the way of getting money in this country and would have restrained the Government from bringing in a measure which is going to pauperise most of the landowners in Scotland, with the result that he will get very much less in the matter of income tax, and the direct outcome of which will be that he will have to pay huge subsidies in the relief of rates. So I cannot see where there is any catch in it at all.

The Clause as it stands gives no security that it will not be unreasonably used, and I want to point out that if the Clause is passed no land will be secure. I think a far better clause could have been invented. I have no objection to the real reasons underlying the Clause, but as drafted it is going to depreciate practically the whole of the land in the North. I must ask the noble and learned Lord to consider what the effect of it will be upon mortgaged land in Scotland. At the present moment I should think that certainly more than half the rural land in Scotland is under mortgage, and if the value of the land is to be depreciated in this way in a great many cases the estates are so burdened that the bond-holders will actually lose their money. In that case there will be taken away a great deal of the security of the land, and it will be extremely difficult to get money at any price to carry out improvements. I cannot see the advantage of a measure which is so unjust, and to prevent compensation being payable for injury done to the value of sporting rights on the land is not fair. This paragraph will do a great deal of harm, and I must move its recission unless the Government are prepared to give us a Clause in which we can fairly agree.

Amendment moved— Page 7, lines 1 to 6, leave out paragraph (iii).—(The Duke of Atholl.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

After the decision which your Lordships so recently reached by a large majority this is a matter of comparatively small importance, and I propose to discuss it quite briefly. The paragraph was attacked from both sides in the House of Commons, and was very fully discussed in the Scottish Standing Committee on November 5 and 10. Let me say at once that it is recognised that there may be what are sometimes called natural deer forests consisting of land suitable for deer and useless, or practically useless, for agriculture or the grazing of sheep. Under these circumstances separate treatment is, of course, to be justified, and it is adopted in this Bill. But there is also land devoted to deer which has been cleared of sheep and of men, or in other places withheld from pastoral uses in order that deer may abound. I do not think that any noble Lord will challenge that statement. It is considered as a matter of policy that sheep might be readmitted to much of this land without a serious reduction in the stock of deer or a serious diminution in sporting value. The rule set out in the Clause is that regard is to be had to such sporting value as arises from what are called legitimate sporting uses. This would mean the full sporting value in natural forests, and in other cases a value corresponding not to exclusive sporting use, but to such sporting use as should be consistent with concurrent agricultural or pastoral use so far as the land admits of that. The noble Duke apparently almost makes it a grievance that the Government has not suggested some Amendment to its own Clause, and have not met them half way. I am informed that the Secretary for Scotland has discussed this matter very closely with him, and with profound respect to the noble Duke, I must demur to the view that it is the duty of the Government, which is perfectly satisfied with its own Clause, to put forward an Amendment of it. It is for noble Lords who are dissatisfied to move such Amendment as would give effect to their grievances.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

I shall support this, for the State has no right to take away land or property on which death duties have been paid and not compensate the landlord for the loss. That was what led me to support the noble Duke in the last Division. It is the same motive which induces me to support him now, because I hold very strongly that wherever a case has been made on which the landowners have paid death duties to the State and the property on which those death duties are paid is deteriorated the State is bound to pay compensation for it.

LORD LOVAT

I shall certainly follow the noble Duke if he goes to a Division. It is a similar case to certain other cases under the Bill in which the Scottish landowners are not treated in the same way as the English landowners have been. At Election time we had certain definite promises made in Scotland by the leader of the Unionist Party, Mr. Bonar Law, as well as promises made by Mr. Lloyd George, that land would be taken as and when required for soldiers, but that suitable compensation would be paid. I would take issue with the Lord Chancellor and say that it is up to the Government to fulfil that pledge. The amount of money which is involved, however, is very apt to be exaggerated. I believe that you could produce the number of deer forests suitable for carrying a stock of sheep or for afforestation at a not very considerable cost. I believe that £200,000 would probably produce perhaps 50 per cent. of your deer forests, which is a very small sum to sacrifice for a promise definitely made. The Bill as it stands gives absolute power to take land wherever they wish, and makes it possible by merely placing 200 sheep there to absolutely ruin a subject which may be bringing in £3,000 or £4,000 a year, of which 50 per cent. of the net revenue goes to the local rates. I listened very closely to the debate in the House of Commons on the local rate question, in which the sporting interest plays a large part. The question of the rates was never fairly faced in another place, and it is essentially here that we realise what importance the rate question has. An accusation has been made that I am not in favour of reducing the area of land dealt with by sport. I am in favour of its reduction to the absolute limit possible, but I do believe that there are two distinct limitations. One is the rates, and the other is the amount of wintering for sheep on the high ground. I would add that I have spoken in exactly the same terms in my own country on this very point. I happened to stand the other day for a County Council election, and I told the electors that I was certainly going to oppose the Government in this House for not paying adequate compensation to landowners for what is taken away. I am absolutely satisfied that I did not lose a vote at my election by the fact that I stated what I thought was correct to be done. I do not believe that the average man in Scotland would not agree that fair compensation should be paid to the lan-owner for what is taken away from him. With regard to what the noble and learned Lord has said, I think it is only fair when a subject is taken away that full and fair compensation should be paid. I shall certainly follow the noble Duke into the Lobby if he divides.

On Question, whether paragraph (iii), proposed to be left out, shall stand part of the clause.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following clause— "10. Where the Board make any order under the immediately preceding section they shall, if so requested by the landlord, be bound to erect and maintain, or cause to be erected and maintained, to the satisfaction of the landlord of the land comprised in the scheme and of any adjoining land such march fence, or fences, as may be necessary to prevent the stock of the landholder straying beyond the limits of the land comprised in the scheme, any dispute as to the adequacy of such fence or fences to be settled failing agreement by the Land Court.

The noble Duke said: The Amendment is simply this. In cases where there are pieces of ground cut off from deer forests, permission shall be given to put up fences and that putting up of fences shall be compulsory, if it is required. I do not think I need say anything further. The reason is to prevent stock from getting out and straying into the ground and spoiling its value. The landlords may not require fences to be put up, but where it is necessary to do so I think it should be compulsory.

Amendment moved— After Clause 9 insert the said new clause.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22 Not Contents, 36.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Hylton, L.
	Peel, V.	Lee of Fareham, L.
Bradford, E.		Meston, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)	Shaw, L.
Lytton, E.	Clwyd, L.	Sinha, L.
Onslow, E.	Colebrooke, L.	Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
		Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Argyll, D.	Chaplin, V.	Erskine, L.
Portland, D.	Churchill, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
	Falkland, V.	Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Cholmondeley, M.	Hampden, V.	Gisborough, L.
Linlithgow, M.		Harris, L.
Salisbury, M.	Ampthill, L.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Lamington, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) [Teller.]	Lovat, L.
		Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Malmesbury, E.	Clinton, L.	Saltoun, L.
Rosslyn, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Sandys, L.
Selborne, E.	Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Strafford, E.	Ebury, L.	Wyfold, L.
Strange, E. (D. Atholl.) [Teller.]	Elphinstone, L.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This proposal in its present form is unacceptable, but if the noble Duke will put it down in such a form as to make the Land Court, failing agreement, the arbitrator in respect of the necessity for fencing as well as the adequacy of any particular fence I should not quarrel with him. Perhaps he will do so on Report, or as there is not much time I had better say that I will consider some words by the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 10 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14:

As to land within burgh in crofting counties.

14. Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of section twenty-six of the Act of 1911, or in the reference to that paragraph in subsection (4) of the said section, a person may be held, as from and after the commencement of this Act, an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder, and shall be admissible to registration as a new holder under the Act of 1911 in respect of land within the parliamentary, police, or municipal boundary of any burgh or police burgh situate in the counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to leave out Clause 14. The noble Duke said: On this Amendment I am entirely in the hands of the Government.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 14.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Duke says he is in the hands of the Government. I can assure him he has done nothing to entitle him to expect to receive any compassion from our hands. If he does not intend to press the Amendment I should be strongly tempted to tell him to leave it where it is. On the other hand, there is something to be said for the point raised, and while in all new small holdings, properly selected, the Board might safely be allowed any such powers as are spoken it may cause confusion now and stereotype all existing holdings without distinction. I think the result which the noble Duke desires could be obtained by omitting the words from "person" to "shall," but at this hour of the evening I think we should prefer to trust to the clearness of the Report stage, and I invite him to postpone the proposal until then.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

Power to make advances to land banks, &c.

15. In addition to the purposes mentioned in section six of the Act of 1911, the Board may, on such terms and conditions as they think proper, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland and the Treasury, apply the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund constituted under section five of that Act in making or guaranteeing advances, either directly or indirectly, to land banks or co-operative or credit societies having for their object or one of their objects the assistance of tenants under Part I of this Act, landholders or statutory small tenants in the stocking, equipment, and profitable working of their holdings.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "and may, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland, apply the said fund in the acquisition for such sum or annual payment as failing agreement may be determined by the Land Court, of land for the purposes of facilitating the constitution of new landholders' holdings and the enlargement of landholders' holdings."

The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment is obvious. It is, that with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland there shall be an alternative to purchase as well as lease.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope the noble Duke will be satisfied with the wounds which his tomahawk has already inflicted on the Bill, and will not persevere with this Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I do not wish to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

First Schedule:

(5) If within that period no such objection has been so presented, or every such objection so presented has been withdrawn, the Board may subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland, forthwith make the Order; but if any such objection has been duly presented and has not been withdrawn, the Board shall take the same into consideration, and, after such inquiry (if any) as they think fit, may either withdraw the Order, without prejudice to the preparation and making of a new Order, or may make the Order with or without modification, subject to the approval aforesaid.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after (5) in the First Schedule, to insert, "Provided that, before giving such approval, the Secretary for Scotland shall consider any objections which may have been presented to the Board as aforesaid and not withdrawn, and shall, if so required in such objections, direct the sheriff of the county in which the land comprised in the Order is situated to hold a local inquiry and to report to him with respect to such objections."

The noble Duke said: My sole point in moving this Amendment is that some people feel that they are being tried by the same Court twice, and that the Court itself is interested. Nobody suggests that the Secretary for Scotland would not be a fair arbitrator, or that anybody in his position could not be trusted. At the same time he is a very busy man and has not the time to go into these matters. As there is a law officer in every district in the person' of the Sheriff he could make a local investigation and report upon the case, although some people are afraid that there might be a certain amount of political bias used with regard to these small holdings, and this would really be a very great safeguard, I think, for the Secretary for Scotland himself, who ought not to be particularly anxious to make himself arbiter in these matters. If the Sheriff found good reason for making these Orders the Secretary for Scotland would be in a very strong position.

Amendment moved— First Schedule, page 15, line 33, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Duke of Atholl.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Schedule relates to the compulsory purchase of land for small holdings by the power in Part I of the Bill, or for allotments by local authorities under Part III. It has nothing whatever to do with Part II. Now, my Lords, under the scheme of the Bill the Order is to be made by the Board subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland. For the intervention of the Sheriff in such a case, so far as I know, there is no precedent in the whole of the history of Scottish Law, and it would undoubtedly cause a great deal of delay. If we are to seek for guidance in the English case, such orders are made by the County Councils, subject to the approval of the Board, and during the next three years, under Part of the recent English Act they do not even require the approval of the Board. I do not think noble Lords would put forward the contention that the Secretary for Scotland would be likely to discharge his duties in a perfunctory way, and I hope they will be satisfied with what is given them under this Act, namely, a larger degree of protection than is given in the English Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

May I ask when it is proposed to take the Report stage of this Bill?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Marquess makes a very reasonable application. I think, on the whole, it would be not inconvenient—at least I understand so—to noble Lords from Scotland that a very short interval should interpose between the discussion to-day and the Report stage. After all the points at issue are very clearly determined, and I am not hopeful, although for some time I was, that an adjustment in respect of them would be reached in this House. I do not know that anything is to be gained by postponing for any considerable time the Report stage. There are two points on which your Lordships have over-ruled the Government—one of first class importance—and two points of quite subordinate importance on which I have promised amendments, which I can readily introduce to-morrow, and which will not be the subject of controversy. As your Lordships have taken the course on these two points of challenging directly the policy of the Government in this Bill, I should have thought it would be acceptable to everybody if to-morrow we took the Report stage and sent the Bill to the House of Commons, in order that whatever controversy may develop may be developed at the earliest possible moment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is not a matter for us to express a very strong feeling about, but I should certainly have thought that a delay of 48 hours to consider the Bill would be an advisable course, but if the noble and learned Lord does not agree with me I do not wish to press the matter further.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I take the responsibility, on a matter on which I feel very strongly indeed, of saying that if there was any disposition which I could appreciate to take a different or largely modified view on the very important decisions taken in this House to-night, I certainly am not one of those who would say whatever the results might be that I would not take the Report stage tomorrow, but I was bound to assume and did assume that the decision taken to-night was deliberately taken with full knowledge of all that it was likely to involve, and if that was a first view I confess that I should think that the more convenient course would have been to take the Report stage to-morrow, but if any noble Lord from Scotland desires to take a different view I shall carefully consider it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We will not press the matter further, but will take the Report stage to-morrow.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I said that if any noble Lord from Scotland cared to take the view—

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I think that for many reasons it should be taken tomorrow.

The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended.