SECOND READING. (Hansard, 17 May 1882)

§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the principle of the Bill had been already received with favor on both sides of the House; but legislation was postponed because the Allotment Management Act of 1873 had not received a sufficient trial. It had now done so, and its inutility had made more manifest the necessity for the present Bill. The object of the Bill was to oblige the trustees of charitable and common lands to let such lands in small lots to laborers and cottagers, instead of letting them in large quantities to farmers and others. According to this Bill, the cottagers or those concerned might, if necessary, apply to the County Court Judge for an order to compel the trustees to carry out the provisions of the Bill. The prejudices of farmers against such legislation were disappearing, for it was found that the only way of keeping the best laborers was to give them some interest in land which they could cultivate for themselves. He 942 had received a large number of letters from clergymen and others urging that this legislation was necessary to prevent their districts becoming depopulated; and the Bishop of Ely had written an interesting letter, giving an account of a successful experiment he had made in the letting of land in small allotments. It was daily becoming more and more evident that, unless something of this kind were done, the redundant population of the towns would increase at an alarming rate, while agriculturists would lose the labor that was required for the cultivation of the land. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. BROADHURST
said, he thought it highly desirable that the Bill should be passed. Laborers in rural districts were hard pushed indeed if they could not supplement their scanty wages by some little cultivation in the shape of garden or allotment ground. Many men in the country would have been unable to bring up their families in respectability except for the support they had derived from small plots of land which had been let to them. Besides, it gave a man something to do in his spare hours. He could speak from experience of the immense advantages derivable from the cultivation of garden plots.

§ MR. CROPPER
said, he was rejoiced to add a word in favor of this measure. He did not believe it could meet with any opposition in the House, and he was glad to hear that the Government intended to assent to the second reading. It would, however, be an improvement, in his opinion, if a provision could be introduced to the effect that glebes might be cut up for allotments.

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
thought the Bill would be of great value in reference to in closures, as many schemes for in closure had been rejected, because the allotments proposed to be made were so inconveniently situated that they could not be made use of. By the 5th clause of the Bill it was proposed to give power to let allotments inconveniently situated, and to take land in other parts of the neighborhood. He wished to add an example to show how great was the desire of the poor to obtain allotments of 943 this character. Mr. Henley, formerly a Member of that House, had upon his estate set aside 109 acres of land to be let in allotments of about one acre in extent, just as was proposed by this Bill. There were no conditions whatever attached to the letting. Any laborer, except a person of bad character, could apply for an allotment, and he was accepted as a yearly tenant. On the 109 acres there were 105 tenants. The result had been that one of the Assistant Commissioners employed by the Duke of Richmond's Commission had testified to the superiority of the crops on these allotments, as compared with the crops on the adjoining farms. The tenants occasionally clubbed together and hired a steam threshing-machine. The rental was about the same as that of other land in the locality, and the tenants of each allotment paid a local rate. The financial results were most extraordinary. During 45 years since the commencement of this mode of letting one-acre allotments the rents had been entirely and without exception paid; and the accounts in September, 1879, showed that only five out of the 105 tenants were in arrear of any sort. He did not think the President of the Local Government Board could desire stronger evidence than that to make him support the principle of this measure. The Reports of the Assistant Commissioners of the Royal Agricultural Commission showed that the farmers generally were now disposed to prefer laborers who had the advantage of allotments. The farmers said that one of the most beneficial results was that the children were in very early years trained to agricultural employment, and another advantage was that they acquired habits of thrift and industry, which were so valuable to all classes of the community. He trusted that the Bill would be passed, and that the result would be beneficial and speedy.

§ COLONEL BARNE
supported the Bill. He did not think the House wished to produce a race of occupiers on the Irish scale of two or three acres. Therefore, he thought that the allotments for laborers ought to be limited to something like one acre, whereon they might make a certain amount of money without endeavoring to live upon it—an attempt which must end in starvation.

§ MR. WIGGIN
said he had great pleasure in supporting the second reading of the Bill, which must have a very beneficial effect in inducing the better class of laborers to remain in the districts in which their labor was required.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, he was glad to be able to give the support of the Government to the second reading of the Bill; but he was bound to inform the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) that some of the clauses, particularly Clauses 4 and 5 would require consideration at the hands of the Government. He did not know that there was any great objection to the principle of the measure, but only to the mode in which the proposal was to be carried out. He entirely sympathized in what had been said in favor of the principle of allotments, for he was himself a trustee of charity land on which the very system proposed in this Bill had been carried out for 20 years with the greatest benefit to the people in the neighborhood. With the understanding which he had mentioned, he would agree to the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. WILLIAMSON
said he was glad the Government had accepted the principle of this most valuable measure, and hoped they would have no objection to extend it to Scotland; and, in addition to dealing with the lands specified in this Bill, he sincerely hoped they would also deal with glebe lands.

§ MR. WARTON
protested against the additional work imposed by this Bill being thrown upon the County Court Judges.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, that he should support the second reading of the measure; but he felt that it required a deal of amendment in Committee with reference to many of its details. At least, that was his opinion after a first perusal of its provisions. There was the provision with regard to the trustees of charities being called upon to put up their allotments at annual tender. He thought that that plan might work unfairly and unjustly in the case of a man who, having improved his allotment, should have his rent raised in consequence at the end of the year. That would act very unfairly, and prevent holders of allotments from improving them as they otherwise would. Therefore, on the whole, although the Bill deserved support, he 945 thought that it required considerable improvement in the direction which he had indicated.

§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON
supported the Bill.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said that he had some experience of the working of charities referred to by his hon. Friend (Sir Baldwyn Leighton). He happened to be the Chairman of a Charity whose funds were equally distributed between the church and the poor of the parish. He could say that the trustees would be very glad to make as much rent as they could out of the land by letting it in allotments under certain circumstances and conditions but that could not certainly be carried out in every case. The Charity Commissioners must know that the trustees of charities could not afford to let off the best parts of their land and leave the worst portion on their hands. The persons wishing to become possessed of allotments would only take the best portions; and, therefore, the clause in the Bill on the subject would require to be so amended that that injustice would be guarded against. On the broad question, he quite agreed that if a man had the time after a hard day's work to cultivate an allotment, it would be a good thing, for it would enable him to meet, perhaps, the rent of his cottage. But there should be no letting of land in such a quantity as would induce a man to believe that he could support himself and his family by confining his labor to its cultivation. The general principle of the Bill, under certain circumstances, might be good; but it might also be abused. He, however, would offer no opposition to the second reading of the Bill; but he hoped that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) would carefully consider the provisions of his measure, and deal fairly and considerately with all the points that had been raised during the present discussion. It was clear that the details required to be extensively amended, and on the manner in which the hon. Member was prepared to meet the views of others depended the fate of the Bill during its future stages. He should not oppose the second reading.