LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS BILL. [BILL 329.]

HC Deb 19 August 1887 vol 319 cc1115-236

(Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Mr. W. H. Long.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 12th August.]

[FIRST NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

I must ask the permission of the Committee to make a short statement in reference to this measure, -which I think may tend to accelerate the progress of the Bill through Committee. The Committee will be aware that there was a debate upon the second reading of the Bill, and also upon the Motion for going into Committee. At that time I expressed the desire of the Government to consider carefully any proposal which would have the effect of making the Bill a more effective means of carrying out the intention of the Government to provide labourers throughout the country with allotments. I should now like to state to the Committee what the result of the consideration by the Government of those proposals has been. The Committee know already that the Government do not propose to adhere to the provision in the Bill which sets up the Quarter Sessions as the tribunal to whom application was to be made for the issue of a Provisional Order in the event of Parliamentary powers being required for the purchase of land. Secondly, in regard to setting the machine to work. Certain suggestions were made that in the Bill no means were provided by which the Local Authority might be made aware of the desire existing in a particular parish or district for these allotments. I propose to accept an Amendment which provides that on the representation of not less than six registered Parliamentary electors in any parish or district it shall be the duty of the Sanitary Authority to take the representation made to them as to the existence of a desire for these allotments into consideration. There is another question to which some little importance has been attached on both sides of the House—namely, the question of how the managers of the allotments are to be constituted. The provision in the Bill is that they are to be appointed by the Sanitary Authorities both in urban and rural districts. It is now proposed that in cases where representations are made by a certain portion of the locality in a rural district that they desire to elect their own managers rather than have them appointed by the Sanitary Authority, then the election of these local managers shall take place, and that it shall be conducted on the principle that each man shall have one vote, and that they shall vote by ballot.

An hon. MEMBER

One man, one vote.

MR. RITCHIE

Yes; with references to the proposal that an allotment may consist of either one acre of arable land, or three acres of pasturage, the Government are unable to assent to the proposal that it should be incumbent on the Local Authority to provide three acres of pasturage. What the Government do propose is that the Sanitary Authority may, and in some cases shall provide a sufficient amount of land where it is practicable to meet a demand, if it exists, for common pasturage. There is only one other point with which I will trouble the Committee. It relates to the question of buildings. In the Bill, it was provided that no buildings of any kind should be erected on the land. As I explained to the Committee, although undoubtedly the words of the clause would prevent the erection of a building of any kind, that was not the intention of the Government, our object being only to exclude dwelling houses, and kindred buildings. It is, therefore, proposed to accept an Amendment to provide that greenhouses, tool houses, pig-styes, and fowl houses may be erected on allotments, coupled with another Amendment proposed from the other side of the House, that on the vacation of an allotment, neither the Sanitary Authority nor an incoming tenant shall be bound to take such buildings by valuation. I have though it the best course to state what the result of the deliberations of the Government have been, and I hope it may have the effect of clearing the way for the passing of the Bill.

MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)

I have listened with attention to the statement which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I would point out to him the great inconvenience the course he has taken involves, not only to Members on this side of the House, but to others on the opposite side who have taken the trouble to put down Amendments which we think the Bill needs. It is quite difficult enough to frame Amendments when one knows what the provisions of a Bill are. The right hon. Gentleman has now suggested very important alterations in the measure, some of which are most excellent, and I was exceedingly glad to hear them. But I think the Committee will see that the Amendments proposed by the Government almost amount, in many respects, to a new Bill, and until we see the form of the Amendments, and the words in which they are to be expressed and the places in which they are to be inserted, I do not see how it is possible, with advantage, to go into Committee this evening. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will place on the Paper the Amendments of which he has given Notice, some of which are of the utmost importance, and involve very large principles in the Bill. In some respects they amount to an absolute reconstruction of the Bill; and therefore I will ask the Government to Jay these reconstructive clauses on the Table, so as to give us an opportunity of considering them before the Bill is discussed in Committee.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I am grateful to the Government for having stated distinctly the course they intend to take. It was by no means an unusual course, and it is one that invariably has met with the general acceptance and agreement of the Committee. With the single exception of the Amendment relating to common pasturage, there are on the Paper Amendments embodying all the concessions the Government have agreed to make. If hon. Members are in earnest in desiring that the Bill should pass into law, and realize the wishes which have been expressed in regard to it, nothing could be more unfortunate than that the Committee should be postponed in order that hon. Members might study the Government Amendments.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

May I ask you, Mr. Courtney, what is before us?

THE CHAIRMAN

Nothing. I call upon Mr. Staveley Hill, in whose name the first Amendment stands.

Clause 1 (Short Title).

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

I beg to move the first Amendment, which is to add, at the end of the 1st clause, these words— And this Act and 'The Friendly Societies' Act, 1875,' shall be read and construed together as one Act. I may mention that the Amendment is one which practically embodies a great number of other Amendments I have placed upon the Paper. The proposition I have to lay before the Committee, on this Amendment, is that the present scheme, as embodied in the Bill, is one which is absolutely unworkable, and therefore I wish to submit a counter-scheme for incorporating the Friendly Societies' Act with the Bill, and constituting the two one Act. If that course is accepted by the Committee, then, by adopting the other Amendments which I have put upon the Paper, I believe we may be able to frame a scheme which will carry out the object we all profess to have in view. I take it that what we desire is to give to the labourer of this country the power of obtaining an allotment in every case in which he may desire one; but it requires a certain amount of faith to induce one to believe that that is the intention of those who have framed this Bill; for nothing more unworkable could have been submitted to Parliament. Before I proceed to show what will be the effect of bringing this Bill and the Friendly Societies' Act together, let me first of all draw the attention of the Committee to the scheme by which it is proposed to work this measure. I think I shall be able to to show my right hon. Friends below me that their scheme, as a whole, cannot be carried out. I believe I shall be in Order in doing so, because there is no other way in which I can show the necessity of adopting the Amendment which I am about to propose. The scheme by which the Government intend to work the Bill is one which has in view two conditions of things. One state of things is the taking of land by agreement, and the other is the adoption of the means employed in the compulsory clauses of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845 as to the taking of land otherwise than by agreement. I will ask the Committee for a moment to lay aside the taking of land by agreement, and I will proceed to show how unworkable this measure will be if any attempt is made to make use of it for the taking of land for the purpose of allotment, otherwise than by agreement. The second sub-section of the third clause of this Bill mentions the provisions of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending that measure with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement, and it is proposed to incorporate this Bill with that Act. Now, the Bill provides that Section 178 of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall also be incorporated, but that is merely a clause which deals with the Duchy of Lancaster, and will have no real effect on the question at present before the Committee. The 4th sub-section of the 3rd clause incorporates three sections of the Public Health Act —namely, 176, 296, and 297. It is, however, not necessary to trouble the Committee with the last two of those clauses. One of them is merely a formal clause, and the other lays down certain conditions in regard to a provisional scheme. The clause which is of real importance is that which incorporates the Public Health Act of 1875, or, rather, Section 176 of that Act. Section 176 incorporates not only the Land Clauses Consolidation Act which had been previously incorporated, but it also gives powers with regard to the taking of land otherwise than by agreement. Perhaps I may be allowed, in a very few words, to call the attention of the Committee to what these requirements are, so that they may bear in mind the whole subject-matter in regard to which these clauses are to be applied. First of all, it is required that any scheme it is intended to enact should be ready by the beginning of November—any scheme I mean under which it may be proposed to take land for these allotments, and that such scheme should be advertised for a period of three weeks in the local newspapers. That having been done, it is necessary, in the next place, to deposit plans and comply with other requirements in the month of December. When that has been done the Local Board is to petition the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board is to send down an officer to inquire whether the scheme is one which can be properly carried out. On being satisfied in that respect the Local Government Board is to empower the Local Board to present a Petition for a Provisional Order, and it is further necessary when the Provisional Order has been granted, that it should be laid upon the Table of this House before any further step can be taken, so that you have, first of all, advertisements in November, the scheme deposited in December, the Local Government Board petitioned, an inquiry by the Local Government Board at the place itself; next the grant of a Provisional Order, and then the Provisional Order to be laid upon the Table of this House. All this is to be done in order to enable a Local Authority to purchase five acres of land to be let out in retail at agricultural prices. Was there ever such a scheme devised? Can anybody imagine that such a scheme is possible? It would be difficult enough if the land could be bought without any of these conditions; but if it is to be bought loaded with all these costs, can it really be let to labourers at any moderate rent? I say that the whole scheme is a delusion. But we have still one step further to go. I have only so far taken the provisions which are included in the 176th section of the Public Health Act; but that 176th Section incorporates the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, and when all the formalities I have mentioned have been gone through it may be necessary to do something further. In the event of the person who owns the land still refusing to sell, there is an appeal to the Justices, if the sum involved is under £50, and if it is above that value the case may be referred to an arbitrator with an umpire or to a jury, so that further expense will be added before the price of the land can be fixed. Under the Land Clauses Act the person soiling the land has been held to be entitled, not only to the value of the land, but also to 15 per cent for severance and 10 per cent for compulsory purchase. All these additional costs are to be added to the value of the laud itself, and they can- not fail to raise the original value by at least from 150 to 200 per cent. Then I would ask the Committee if I am not justified in saying that so cumbrous a method of proceeding ought not to be adopted? Before passing from this point, let me call the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board and the First Lord of the Treasury to the fact that this Bill is limited to three years.

MR. RITCHIE

Three years!

MR. STAVELEY HILL

Yes; three years. Sub-section. 5 of Clause 3 provides— In construing for the purposes of this section any section or Acts incorporated with this section, this Act shall be deemed to be the Special Act, and the sanitary authority shall be deemed to be the local authority or the promoters of the undertaking as the case requires, and the word 'land' shall have the same meaning as in this Act. I ask the Committee to take notice that this Act is to be "the Special Act," and is to be so construed in regard to any section that is incorporated in it. And now what are the sections that are incorporated with this section? If the Committee will kindly look at a passage in the clause a few lines above the one I have read—namely, the commencement of Sub-section 4, they will find the following words:— For the purpose of the purchase of land under this section otherwise than by agreement, sections one hundred and seventy-six, two hundred and ninety-six, and two hundred and ninety-seven of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall, so far as consistent with the ten our of this Act, be incorporated with this Act, and apply as if they were herein re-enacted, with the substitution of 'the county authority' for 'the Local Government Board,' and of 'any officer of the county authority appointed for the purpose of an inquiry' for 'inspectors of the Local Government Board.' So that the Land Clauses Act is incorporated with this Act, and the whole together are to form the Special Act. Now, that very Land Clause Consolidation Act provides, in Section 123, that no land shall be bought under the Special Act after the lapse of three years from the time of the passing of the Act, so that by this Act, being a Special Act, the power of purchase can only be exercised for three years after the Act has been passed, and at the termination of three years from the passing of this Act those powers will have expired.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

May I ask, as a point of Order, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman can discuss the whole of the clauses of the Bill on the Amendment of which he has given Notice?

THE CHAIRMAN

The course which is being pursued by the hon. and learned Gentleman is, no doubt, very inconvenient; but I cannot say that it is out of Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to alter the 1st clause in the way he has indicated, in order to substitute a different machinery for that provided in the Bill. He is, therefore, in Order, however inconvenient this course may be.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

I can assure the Committee that I will keep as close to the question as I can, and I have no wish to speak out of Order. I have now, however, nearly gone through all that part of the argument which may appear to the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham to be out of Order. I maintain that the Bill is one that can only exist for three years. There is, however, another point to which I desire to call the attention of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury. What do the Government propose to do? They are proposing to pass a measure which cannot come into operation until the spring of 1889. No scheme under it can possibly be initiated until the month of November, 1888. It is absurd to say that all the schemes could be prepared by November, 1887, seeing that the Bill itself cannot receive the Royal Assent until the month of September. The result will be that no scheme can be passed until somewhere about the month of March, 1889. Therefore, we are absolutely asked to spend our valuable time at the end of the Session in passing a Bill which has been bottled up until now, and which the country has had no opportunity of discussing, and which, when passed, can only be in operation for something like 18 months. By my Amendment I ask the Committee to incorporate with the Bill the Friendly Societies Act of 1875. That Act brings together all the different Acts which were then in existence, and in which the late Sir Stafford Northcote took so active an interest. In that Act, which is as good an Act as was ever placed upon the Statute Book of this country, there are all kinds of provisions for the registration of what are called "spe- cially authorized societies," which contain elaborate provisions for the auditing of accounts, for the distribution of assets, and for imposing penalties upon persons who contravene the provisions of the law. It contains every provision that can be required to meet the exigencies of a case like the present; and, above all things, it provides that a special officer, appointed in connection with friendly societies, shall be the proper person before whom shall be brought in the initiative schemes of this sort, and who will look after the affairs of the society after it has bean constituted. That officer is the Chief Registrar. We have, under that Act, certain societies incorporated for certain purposes; but, as I have said, there are certain other societies mentioned at the end of the list, and which are practically with the same object as proposed by the Bill we are now considering. I may inform my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill that there is only one short clause in. that Act which prevents the Act from being put into operation in this matter. If my right hon. Friend will undertake to repeal that clause, I am prepared to say that the Friendly Societies Act will be much more successful than the present Bill of the Government can be. The clause to which I refer is to the effect that some of these specially "authorized societies"—which might be allotment societies—shall hold more than one acre of land. If that clause is repealed and the Friendly Societies Act is put in force in connection with this Bill, I will undertake that before my right hon. Friend can get one single allotment I will bring, at least, 100. If the Government will repeal that clause and incorporate the Friendly Societies Act with this Bill, I would offer no further opposition to the measure, but would allow it to find its way into the waste paper basket, its proper receptacle. I am satisfied that the Bill, in its present shape, will prove altogether unworkable. I do not intend to go into the other difficulties which arise under the clauses of the Bill. Upon those clauses there will be plenty of opportunity of raising a discussion before the measure can pass through Committee; but I will only say that they are difficulties which it is impossible to dispose of in one or two days. There is one question which my right hon. Friend mentioned in his statement, and which is also met by my Amendments. There is not only the difficulty of the mechanism of the Bill as it at present stands, but also the important question as to who is to take the initiative. These difficulties appear to be so important that the noble Lord opposite the Member for Petersfield (Viscount Wolmer) has been driven to relinquish the English language and resort to Latin. I find he proposes to strikeout the word "considerable," in order to provide that the authority shall be a "bondâ fide" one. If we adopt the Friendly Societies Act that difficulty will be solved at once, because it is there provided that any society may be registered by seven persons having mot together, who have taken certain steps with a view of showing that they intend to carry out the society if it is registered. Therefore, in regard to the initiative, there can be no difficulty whatever under the Friendly Societies Act. I am sure that hon. Members desire as well as myself that the passing of the Bill shall not be a mere illusion, and that it is most undesirable to put upon the Statute Book an Act which cannot be carried into operation. I hope that all hon. Members who wish to see allotments of land granted to labourers at a fair rate will support the Amendment which I now beg to move, and by which I am endeavouring to incorporate the machinery of the Bill with the clauses of the Friendly Societies Act:

Amendment proposed,

At end of the Clause, to add the words "and this Act and 'The Friendly Societies Act, 1875,' shall be read and construed together as one Act."—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. RITCHIE

I shall not imitate the example of my hon. and learned Friend, who has professed his earnest desire to provide every labouring man in England with an allotment, but who shows his anxiety to do so by proposing an Amendment which is strictly limited, to an endeavour to defeat the whole object of the Bill. I shall confine myself simply and solely to the Amendment before the Committee, and I shall decline to be drawn into the discussion my hon. and learned Friend invites me to pursue, although I am perfectly prepared, when we come to the various clauses my hon. and learned Friend has discussed and his proposed Amendments to those clauses, to meet the arguments be has advanced, or any other arguments which may be advanced by any other Member of the Committee. I desire, however, in dealing with this question, to take the same course I propose to take in dealing with every other Amendment— namely, to confine myself strictly to the Amendment before the Committee. The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, if it is adopted by the Committee, is intended to be a prelude to a series of Amendments he has put upon the Paper. It would set up an authority for the execution of the Bill, which would not be in any sense of the word a representative authority. He proposes that wherever any seven persons can be got together in any locality to register themselves as a branch under the Friendly Societies Act, they shall be at once charged with the duty, which, I maintain, should only devolve upon the representatives of the ratepayers, of providing allotments for labourers in villages or urban districts which may entail the security of the rates, and in any sense must entail a considerable amount of responsibility on account of the ratepayers. I should be very loth indeed to make such a proposal on the part of a Government as that which my hon. and learned Friend has made. I am satisfied of this—that there is not a single Member in this House who will be prepared to support the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend to set up as an alternative the buying of allotments or the purchase of land by hypothecating the rates. In no sense of the word can it be said that the authority which my hon. and learned Friend proposes to set up is representative.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

The authority would be the people themselves.

MR. RITCHIE

That may be so; but seven representatives of a friendly society are to be charged with certain powers which are voluntary and not compulsory, and which would only be exercised by a representative body.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

I am sure that my hon. Friend does not intend to misrepresent me. The body which I propose for taking the initiative is a society consisting of allottees not less than seven in number, and they are to be the very men themselves who are to apply for the allotments and who are the labourers.

MR. RITCHIE

Then the first thing to be done in to become a member of a friendly society. I certainly do not agree at all with the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend. Our first duty is to set up an authority, whether it be a good or a bad authority, and it must be representative of the ratepayers. In my opinion that is the only possible authority to which you can entrust the powers authorized by the Bill.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I do not think the proposal of the hon. and learned Member ought to be treated in the manner in which it has been treated by the right hon. Gentleman. When I saw the Amendment on the Paper, and before the hon. and learned Member made his very interesting speech, I was a little puzzled to know what connection there was between friendly societies and the great question of cottage allotments. But I think that in the course of the hon. and learned Member's speech he made that point exceedingly plain, and I think very effective. Although I am not prepared to say that the scheme he has suggested as an opposition scheme to that of Her Majesty's Government is a perfect scheme, or that it could be carried out to the perfect satisfaction of everybody, I think there are germs of feasibility in it which entitle it to candid consideration, and I hope the hon. and learned Member will go to a Division upon it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has challenged any Member of the Committee to get up and say a word in favour of the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal. I cheerfully accept that challenge. I think the proposal the hon. and learned Gentleman has laid before us, and which amounts simply to this—that we should amend the course of procedure in connection with friendly societies by repealing a line and a-half of the Friendly Societies Act of 1875—is not an unreasonable one. The section of that Act which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to repeal is this— Provided that nothing herein contained shall authorize any benevolent society to hold land exceeding one acre at any one time. By repealing those few words and providing, for the purposes of this measure, that the Bill itself and the Friendly Societies Act shall be construed as one Act, we should allow friendly societies, where they are now existing or where they may be instituted, to establish cottage allotments where they may be wanted. There is nothing in the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman to compel friendly societies to do anything of the kind. His proposal only amounts to this—that if Her Majesty's Government are really as anxious as they pretend to be in their new-born anxiety—occasioned, no doubt, by their recent defeat at Spalding and other elections — that if they are so anxious to do what they pretend to do for the benefit of every labourer in a country district, they should provide not only one way of doing it, but also a second way. I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Ministers must be jealous of the competition of any other scheme which may rival their own beneficent measure; but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has made it perfectly clear that, under the provisions and machinery of the Bill of the Government, even modified and altered in any manner their usual agility may suggest, and even supposing that they execute another political somersault in order to curry favour with the constituencies, their Bill will be unworkable for 18 months, and as the measure which is to confer so great a benefit upon the country will only be in operation for three years in all, the actual time at their disposal, in order to allow them to confer the benefits they propose upon the agricultural labourers, will be restricted to a period of 18 months only. Even if it were much more doubtful than it appears to be that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member would work satisfactorily, I maintain that it is fair, at any rate, to give it a chance. It would, at all events, enable those friendly societies which are already in existence to take the matter up, and do something in the interests of the labourers of the country without any unnecessary delay. I do not suppose that even the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will be prepared to say that his proposal can come into operation without some delay in getting the scheme to work; and, under these circumstances, I think it is only fair that some encourage- ment should be given to a rival scheme which may prove to be more practicable. Her Majesty's Government ought to show that they are really sincere in this matter. Certainly, their conduct in regard to other matters in the course of this Session has not afforded any indication of their sincerity: and having studied the provisions of this Bill, I cannot conceive that there is anything more absurd than to assume that the Government are desirous of effecting any real and beneficent reform so far as the interests of the labourers are concerned. If they have any such intention, why do they not make the Bill as simple as possible? Why should they evince an indisposition to trust the people? If the Government really intend to do anything for the benefit of the people in this matter, why have they introduced so roundabout and complicated a machinery? Why do they not provide simple machinery for bringing the provisions of the Bill into operation at once? Why do they not place the measure upon a thoroughly representative basis, and provide every labourer with the opportunity of giving his voice in favour of the carrying out of the Bill without any fear of being coerced by his landlord, or the parson, or the squire? They have deemed it preferable to introduce a complicated machinery, which can only be compared to the use of Nasmyth's steam hammer for the purpose of crushing a gnat. And what does all this expensive machinery amount to, even with the modifications which are proposed to be introduced into it? Only to this—that the Court of Quarter Sessions is not to have any place in the management of this measure. Even with the modifications the right hon. Gentleman proposes to introduce, the arrangements are of so complicated and expensive a character that it is only a delusion and a snare to suppose that any benefit can accrue to the agricultural labourer. The expense will be so enormous that no sensible ratepayer in the district will have anything to do with it. The machinery by which these allotments are to be managed involves a complicated species of representation by an elected body.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is quite out of Order in discussing that matter.

MR. CONYBEARE

I am not going to discuss it.

THE CHAIRMAN

Or in referring to it in any way.

MR. CONYBEARE

Then I will not refer to it. I shall have an opportunity hereafter, I presume, of discussing it at length. I have only been anxious to contrast the two proposals. That of the hon. and learned Member is simple, and might be settled in a few minutes, whereas the exceedingly complicated and expensive unrepresentative machinery proposed by the right hon. Gentleman amounts merely to this—that, as usual, the Government are offering the labourers of, this country something with one hand and taking it away with the other. The labourers have asked for a loaf, and Her Majesty's Government are presenting them with a stone. That is about what the whole matter comes to. I will only say, in conclusion, with regard to the hon. and learned Member's proposal, without pledging myself to any conclusive opinion, that it would work out satisfactorily in all its details; that, as it has been presented to the Committee, it deserves consideration; and I think it would only be gracious and politic on the part of Her Majesty's Government to afford this rival scheme some opportunity of proving -whether it is a better scheme than theirs or not. If the Government prefer to reject any rival proposal of this kind, in my opinion, they will not be indicating the sincerity of their desire to do everything in their power to benefit the agricultural labourer.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I hope my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw his Amendment. As one reason for doing so, I would point out that the principle of the scheme proposed by the Government is the compulsory acquisition of land; and no Government, present or future, would be allowed to entrust that power to such a society as that contemplated by my hon. and learned Friend.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

My hon. Friend says that the essence of the Bill is the compulsory purchase of land. I entirely agree with him, and that is the very reason why I have proposed a scheme by which the compulsion is to be enforced with the least possible difficulty. I have shown how the Local Board can approach the Local Government Board, and how they can put the Chief Registrar in motion by three steps instead of something like 15, and how the process of compulsion may be readily brought about. I shall certainly feel it my duty to go to a Division.

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

I have listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman with astonishment and surprise. I did not expect to hear such an extraordinary proposition coming from the Benches opposite. The hon. and learned Member actually proposes, in the first place, to allow to be set up a voluntarily constituted authority, with compulsory powers for the acquisition of land, and, in the second place, to save it from the consequences of its own mismanagement at the expense of the general community. I have heard over and over again eloquent speeches against the growing tendency to increase the rates, and in favour of increased protection for the ratepayers; but here the hon. and learned Member proposes to put the purse of the ratepayers at the mercy of a voluntarily constituted society consisting of seven labourers who want to have allotments. A more extraordinary proposal has never been made to the House of Commons, and I cannot think that it is worthy of any lengthened discussion.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

May I be allowed to explain that I have not given these societies an opportunity of coming on the rates for a single penny? The whole expense would fall upon the societies themselves.

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN

I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his further explanation; but I venture to say that in that case the Bill would not be worth the paper on which it is written, because the principle of the Bill is that the community shall provide these allotments, and if any loss accrues in carrying out the object sought to be accomplished, that loss should fall on the ratepayers. Unless we can bring in the responsibility of the community, we may as well give up all idea of dealing with the subject. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to tell the Committee that it would be possible for a self-constituted society of seven labourers to undertake the duty of buying laud and of providing allotments, and to bear the loss which may accrue? It must be an extraordinary body of labourers who are in a position to become capitalists to this extent, and to undertake a great work of this kind. As the proposal has been developed by the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanations, it appears more and more ridiculous and absurd than it was at the first glance. I do not intend to enter into a review of the speech of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare). Unless I am mistaken, the constituency of the hon. Member is not particularly interested in acquiring allotments. Therefore, it was perfectly safe for the hon. Member to discuss the question at great length, though, by so doing, he was putting the Bill in danger. But I would make an appeal to hon. Members behind him. No one of any Parliamentary experience can doubt, especially after the announcement made by the Government this afternoon, that the life of the Bill hangs by a thread; and, consequently, my hon. Friends behind me who have shown an interest in the subject for many years have to consider whether, in their opinion, it is worth while and desirable to secure what they will secure by the Bill—namely, the formal acceptance of the principle that compulsory powers for acquiring land shall be given to the Local Authorities, upon whom should be thrown the responsibility of providing these much-needed allotments. I am aware that some of my hon. Friends behind me take exception, and reasonable exception, to many of the provisions of the Bill; but they should remember that the measure is of necessity an imperfect one, because no perfect measure can possibly be introduced until we have a complete system of local government. That is an additional disadvantage we undergo in entering into this discussion now, because we have no complete system of local government before us. I would, however, ask my hon. Friends to consider carefully and seriously whether it is not worth their while, while waiting for a better system of local government, to accept a Bill of this kind, which puts upon record in statutory form the principle of the compulsory purchase of land for allotments, for which I and they have so long contended. Whatever maybe the defects of the Bill, and while we may well try to introduce some Amendments into it, is it not worth while to get this acknowledgment from both sides of the House and place it on the Statute Book? I feel that I am justified in taking that view, after the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) on the second reading of the Bill. If my hon. Friends behind me agree in that view, I trust that they will make some sacrifice of their individual opinions at this period of the Session, and that while they will not feel themselves precluded from moving many of the numerous Amendments of which they have given Notice, they will, having regard to the circumstances of the time, feel that they are doing wisely, and are acting in the interests of the labourers, if they confine the discussion upon those Amendments within reasonable limits, and address their observations to the more important of the Amendments only.

MR. COBB

I have no doubt that we all desire to do what we can to improve the Bill in a perfectly bondâ fide way, and I can assure the President of the Local Government Board that every remark I made was made with that object and no other. I suggested that it was necessary to postpone the discussion not with any object of killing the Bill, but of enabling the Committee to comprehend the nature of the Amendments proposed to be introduced by the Government. So far as I understand the meaning of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he has proposed his scheme as an addition to, and not in substitution of, the plan of the Government. If I am wrong in that matter, I will not say a word further about it. [Mr. STAVELEY HILL assented.] As my hon. and learned Friend nods, I think I may take it that that is so. I certainly cannot see myself what harm there can be in giving to friendly societies the power of acquiring land if their members wish to have it, and of allotting it among their members, if they do not possess that power already. I should like, however, to point out one fact to my hon. and learned Friend, although he is much more likely to be right than I am. I have looked through the Friendly Societies Act to-day, having had no opportunity of doing so before, because the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not printed until this morning, and on looking through that Act I do not find any restriction to one acre of land except in one case, and that is in the case of benevolent societies. If I am right in that, I think the hon. and learned Member will see that these benevolent societies will include very few of the societies which will come in under this Bill. I believe that at this moment friendly societies have absolute power to purchase any amount of land which their members may authorize them to purchase. [Mr. STAVELEY HILL: No.] If the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend means this—that friendly societies are to be given power, by the Amendment which he proposes, to charge and mortgage the rates, I will certainly, under no circumstances, support him; but if he simply means to correct a defect in the Friendly Societies Act, then I shall vote for the Amendment.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

I think my hon. Friend behind me has entirely misinterpreted the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend, which is, as I view it, to substitute his scheme for that of the Government. It would make the scheme a totally different one in toto from the very beginning, and for my part I cannot accept the Amendment in that sense. I believe that it would be wholly unworkable; and I believe, further, that the House would never consent for a moment to give the compulsory power for the purchase of allotments to voluntary societies in the nature of friendly societies. If such a power is to be given at all— and I should strongly support it—it can only be given to Local Authorities. I am in favour of the Bill itself. There may be some clauses in it which are not altogether as workable as we may wish, and possibly we may not be able, in the short time we have before us, to make them as workable as we might like. But I would appeal to my hon. Friends near me to adopt the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, and endeavour to pass the Bill in as short a time and as well as we can, in order that we may have on the Statute Book the principle of compulsion, which I believe to be a most valuable and desirable one. I have had some experience of dealing with the allotment question, because I acted a Chairman of the Committee upon the Bill of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings), which gave power to charity trustees to deal with that question, and I know from experience how difficult the details of such a Bill are. I am not very sanguine; but I think we may be able to get rid of all the difficulties which surround this measure. At all events, let us do all we can in the time before us, and if we do not succeed to the extent of our desires, it may be possible for us, in a future Session, to amend the measure. I have stated that the most important principle of the Bill is the power of compulsory purchase; but I do not believe that the power of compulsory purchase will often have to be exercised, although it will operate as an effective motive power in many parishes throughout the country in inducing landowners to let their laud for allotments. When a landowner feels disinclined to do his duty of his own free will under the provisions of this measure, the Local Authority will have the power of compulsory purchase; and, therefore, I think the landowners will be instigated to go far beyond what they have done in the past. In that way, I believe, it is highly probable that the Local Authority will be able to purchase by agreement, instead of putting the compulsory powers in force; and the landowners, knowing that there are compulsory powers, will be much more ready in the future to allow their land to be taken for this purpose. As I have said, these compulsory powers will be of the greatest value as the motive power; but they will not, in my opinion, be frequently put in force. I sincerely trust that the Bill may pass, and I cordially welcome the proposals hon. which have been made by the right Gentleman opposite the President of the Local Government Board to-day, especially the one for reviving the old commons of England, and enabling the Local Authority to purchase them.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he is going very far beyond the Question before the Committee.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

The whole scheme was opened out by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I have no wish, however, to do anything that is out of Order, and I will only say that I cordially welcome the proposals of the Government, and when they are reached I shall be prepared to state my reasons for doing so.

MR. H. T. DAVENPORT (Staffordshire, Leek)

I should like to remind the Committee of a point which seems to have been forgotten—namely, that the voluntary principle has worked admirably with regard to the building societies which have been established under the Building Societies Act. enabling their members to provide themselves with houses. That is a much more difficult and expensive process than the mere purchase of land for allotments. The object of the hon. and learned Member is not to do away with the compulsory machinery provided by the Bill, but to afford an opportunity for the formation of societies under the Friendly Societies Act for the purchase and retail of allotments. I believe that might be easily carried out on the voluntary principle, and I think with the same success, that has attended the operations of the building societies which have been established in a large number of places for the purpose of providing houses for the working classes. I will not detain the Committee by explaining the operation of these societies; but if their working has been successful in the case of houses, I am sure it would be quite as successful in providing allotment gardens for labourers.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

I would appeal to the hon. and learned Member opposite to withdraw his Amendment and let us get on with the important clauses we have before us. If the hon. and learned Member really wants to give power to friendly societies to serve the interests of the poor by acquiring land by free contract, there can be no objection to that; but it will have to be done by a different Bill from that we are now considering. The Committee will know very well that I do not approve of the Board of Guardians being the authority to put the provisions of this Bill into operation; but I realize that no good will be effected by raising that question now, seeing that it would alter the Bill altogether, and make it a different measure. When we have Local Representative Boards established we shall have another and a better authority, either than Boards of Guardians or ex officio authorities. I therefore hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment, because I do not believe that support will be given to it in any part of the Committee. It proposes to entrust to a voluntary body the power of mortgaging the rates—of exercising compulsory powers for the purchase of land.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

I am anxious that it should be clearly understood that my proposal would not throw a single penny upon the rates, but would simply enable voluntary bodies, such as the friendly societies spoken of by my hon. Friend the Member for the Leek Division of Staffordshire (Mr. H. T. Davenport)—namely, building societies—to acquire land suitable for labourers' allotments. All they would have to do would be to apply to the Chief Registrar, and if he gave his permission they would then apply to the Treasury and obtain the land they require. My object is to secure that in purchasing by agreement—in which case the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act are ready at hand—land shall be obtained as cheaply and as readily as possible, and I have no doubt that the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act would be fairly exercised. Of course, I am in the hands of the Committee; but I would venture to express a hope that my proposal will have the support of the Committee.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

Hon. Members who profess to desire that allotments of land shall be granted upon the voluntary principle have certainly not come to the aid of the hon. and learned Member for Staffordshire, Their principle has always been that the necessary allotments should be provided by voluntary action, and not by Public Bodies at the public risk. The hon. and learned Gentleman has submitted a scheme by which that object may be carried out, and persons may be able to invest their own money in order to satisfy a public need. Therefore, I think that the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman has not been treated fairly in this discussion. The hon. and learned Gentleman fully recognizes the principle of compulsion by giving to voluntary societies compulsory powers for acquiring land for a definite purpose of public necessity, and on that ground I think the proposal should have received more sympathy than has been exhibited towards it in the course of this debate. I prefer the scheme of the hon. and learned Gentleman in some respects to that of the President of the Local Government Board, and for this reason —that it is likely to be more expeditious, and to bring about the satisfaction of this want more rapidly. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman is calculated to lead to a long and troublesome delay, while that of the hon. and learned Gentleman offers a much more speedy method of satisfying the wants of the people. Moreover, it is an additional method of encouraging allotments, and for carrying out the object which hon. Members opposite profess to have at heart. If we are to have compulsory powers at all, I think there ought to be an expeditious mode of putting them into operation. The more effectual the compulsory powers are made, the more general will be the voluntary action on the part of the landowners to prevent them from being put into operation.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 200: Majority 122.—(Div. List, No. 405.)

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

Before this clause is passed I want to ask the very elementary question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board yesterday, but failed to get an answer—namely, what is an allotment? I have made this inquiry of a good many persons who are great authorities on the subject; but I have not been able to get an answer from any of them. The right hon. Gentleman referred me to Johnson's Dictionary. Well, I consulted that dictionary, and this is what I found there—"'Allotment,' that which is allotted to anyone."

THE CHAIRMAN

The question is not appropriate to Clause 1. It should be raised on Clause 14 as a definition.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

Clause 1 embodies the short title of the Bill— "This Act may be cited as the Allotments Act, 1887."

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Duty of Sanitary Authority to acquire land for allotments).

MR. RITCHIE

The first Amendment upon this clause is in the name of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings). I hope he will excuse me for intervening, at this moment, in connection with the Amendments on the Paper; but I wish to point out that there is an Amendment on the Paper which, in principle the Government are prepared to accept, and which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). I believe that that Amendment will fairly carry out the intention of my hon. Friend opposite, and with the permission of the Committee I will move it. It is as follows:—In line 6, to leave out the words, ''Where it appears to the satisfaction of the sanitary authority of any urban or rural district," in order to substitute these words— On a representation in writing to the sanitary authority of any urban or rural district by any six registered Parliamentary electors resident, in the case of an urban district, in that district, and, in the case of a rural district, in some parish in that district, that the circumstances of the urban district or parish are such that it is the duty of the sanitary authority to take proceedings under this Act therein, the sanitary authority shall take such representation into consideration. If the sanitary authority of any urban or rural district are of opinion, either after inquiry made in consequence of such representation or otherwise, that there is a considerable demand for allotments, and that it would be to the public advantage to meet such demand, the sanitary authority shall acquire land adequate to provide allotments, and shall let the land to persons in the district desiring to take it. The Amendment, while setting up the principle of representation, leaves the initiation in the hands of the Local Authority itself. It would be easy to get this representation made in a rural district, where the Sanitary Authority may feel it its duty to put it in operation. There is one slight difference between this proposal and that of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division. The hon. Member proposes that the application should be made by 10 or more persons to the Sanitary Authority, whereas this proposal is that it should be made by six registered Parliamentary electors. The hon. Member further provides that it shall be sufficient for the persons applying to be householders in any urban or rural district, which would mean that the application may come from seven or eight districts in a Union. That is clearly not what the hon. Member means. The Amendment of the right hon. Member for Sleaford makes it incumbent that the representation shall come from six registered Parliamentary electors of the parish where the allotments are required, and it does not take from the Sanitary Authority the power of initiation, which I think ought to remain in their hands, even although the representation does not come from them.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 6, to leave out from the word "where," to the word "district," in line 7, in order to insert the words "on a representation in writing to the sanitary authority of any urban or rural district by any six registered Parliamentary electors resident, in the case of an urban district, in that district, and, in the case of a rural district, in some parish in that district, that the circumstances of the urban district or parish are such that it is the duty of the sanitary authority to take proceedings under this Act therein, the sanitary authority shall take such representation into consideration. If the sanitary authority of any urban or rural district are of opinion either after inquiry made in consequence of such representation or otherwise that there is a considerable demand for allotments, and that it would be to the public advantage to meet such demand, the sanitary authority shall acquire land adequate to provide allotments, and shall let the land to persons in the district desiring to take it."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR.CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

May I ask if the right hon. Member is strictly in order in moving an Amendment which stands lower down on the Paper than another on the same subject in the name of the hon. Member for Bordesley, and to which I have an Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

That is not what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. The right hon. Gentleman, having charge of the Bill, has precedence in moving Amendments, and he is now proposing an Amendment on the same point as that which is dealt with by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bordesley —namely, to leave out certain words, and to substitute a different kind of representation. He proposes to leave out the words "where it appears to the satisfaction of the sanitary authority of any urban or rural district," in order to substitute the words which I have already put. The Question is "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. CHANNING

It strikes me that the Amendment as it stands would make it very difficult for such a representation to be made to the authority in a rural district.

MR. RITCHIE

May I be allowed to explain? The Amendment, as I have amended it, makes it the duty of the Sanitary Authority to move "on a representation being made to it," by a certain number of electors in any part of the district, and then it goes on to say that the representation, if you have an urban district, may come from any part of the urban district; and may come from two or three parishes, whereas if it is made by a rural district it must come from a parish in the district."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the meaning of introducing the qualification of "registered Parliamentary electors?" What we are generally accustomed to in a Bill of this sort affecting local government is not Parliamentary electors, but either "householders" or "ratepayers." That is the ordinary machinery we are used to, and I do not understand why in this case "registered Parliamentary electors" are substituted. For instance, this definition would exclude a class of persons who are quite as entitled as any others in a rural district or an urban district to representation, as, for example, a widow woman with a family. Why should not she apply for an allotment? A widow woman may be a householder with a family of grown-up children and may desire an allotment, and would probably have children who would work the allotment or any grazing pasturage which may be given to her. Why, then, introduce a qualification which will exclude persons of that kind? It seems to me that the proper term to use is "householder" or "ratepayer," or "inhabitant." It is certainly quite new to introduce "registered Parliamentary electors," and it seems to me not to be a proper definition to put in the clause.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

May I point out that a very large number of persons do not pay their own rates, but the landlord pays them for them? Therefore, if we substitute "ratepayers," we should very much narrow the clause, because many labourers are not ratepayers. Nor do I think the clause would be enlarged by inserting the word "inhabitant." It is desirable that there should be a ready means of finding out whether the persons making the representation are resident, and in that respect "registered Parliamentary electors" comply with every requirement. Our sole object is to introduce a comprehensive expression, so that we may get at the very class of persons the right hon. Gentleman desires to include. With regard to women, there is a provision later on in reference to their holding allotments; but if it is desired to introduce special words, something of the kind may be added. I would venture, however, to point out that the scope of the clause, as it stands, is as wide as can be desired.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

The Amendment which has been moved by the President of the Local Government Board is, no doubt, an improvement on that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings). I had myself placed an Amendment on the Paper to the Amendment of my hon. Friend; and if I had been able to move it now, I should have pointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bordesley necessitates an inquiry in every case, which the present Amendment does not; but, although I admit that the Amendment of the Government is an improvement on that of; the hon. Member for Bordesley, I cannot accept it as it has been moved, and for this reason—that it seems to leave the labourers and those who apply for allotments pretty much in the position they were in before. They are only allowed to knock at the door, and are left entirely at the discretion of the Sanitary Authority. They make a representation, and unless the Sanitary Authorities are satisfied, in their own opinion, that the representation is reasonable, they have the opportunity of rejecting it. The Amendment which I propose to move, and which I believe I shall be in Order in moving when this Amendment becomes a substantive Motion, is as follows: — A representation being made in writing by ten or more registered electors of any urban or rural district that they or other inhabitants of full age of such district are desirous of obtaining, but cannot obtain on reasonable terms, allotments, and that there is land suitable and available for allotments within such district, or within a reasonable distance thereof, the sanitary authority shall hold, or cause to be held, a public inquiry within such district, and unless at such public inquiry the allegations contained in such representation are proved to be without foundation, or if. That Amendment is already on the Paper, and I shall move it subject to those alterations of wording which may be necessary in order to append it to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford. In the discussion which took place on the second reading of the Bill, that right hon. Gentleman expressed himself strongly on the point. He wished to give a real and effective initiative in the matter, and he went so far as to complain that he doubted very much whether the Guardians would listen to any representation that was made by labourers who might require allotments; and I understood him to say that he would give an appeal to the Quarter Sessions in order to enable the labourers to enforce the action of the Sanitary Authority. I would, therefore, point out that if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be consistent, he will support the Amendment 1 propose to move, because at the close of the Amendment I place the matter on this footing— Unless at such public inquiry the allegations contained in such representation are proved to be without foundation; and I then use the words "or if," leaving the action of the Sanitary Authority entirely free. I also hope my hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley will support this view of the case, because no one has expressed, as strongly as he has, his desire to make this a real Bill—to empower the labourers to acquire those allotments. All I wish is that the provisions of the measure shall not be evaded by any authority hereafter; and no two hon. Members have insisted more strongly on that point than the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I beg to move to amend the Amendment, by leaving out the words "registered Parliamentary electors," in order to insert "residents."

THE CHAIRMAN

It is not yet possible to amend the Amendment.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

As far as I am individually concerned, I have no objection whatever to accept the proposition of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; but I do not think it makes any real difference in the effect of the Amendment which the Committee are now discussing. In either case it must be a matter of opinion. I have provided that— If the sanitary authority are of opinion, either in consequence of the representation made to them or otherwise, that they are to proceed to act in the matter. The hon. Member provides by his Amendment that— Unless at such public inquiry the allegations contained in such representation are proved to be without foundation, they are to proceed. Whether the representation is proved to be without foundation or not is a matter of opinion to be decided by the Sanitary Authority. As far as I am concerned, I am only anxious to make the clause effective, and to induce the Sanitary Authority to act in all circumstances where there is reasonable ground for so doing. If the Committee prefer the Amendment with the addition suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite I have no objection.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing) that this clause is really moved for the purpose of putting the machinery in motion. We are not dealing with the question of who shall have allotments, or anything of that kind; but we are simply seeking to provide that the Bill shall not become a dead letter. I think there is very little to choose between the two Amendments. The reason why I prefer the present one to my own is that it substitutes six applicants for 10, which is an advantage. The effect will be that in any district, whether it has an Urban Authority or a Rural Authority, six persons making a representation in writing will be able to put the authority in motion. I do not think it worth while to take up the time of the Committee on this particular point, which is simply to set the authority in motion. As I have said, I think the Amendment before the Committee will secure that object equally with mine, and, perhaps, rather better. I therefore trust that the Committee will accept it and allow us to get on.

MR. COBB

The Amendment of the right hon. Member for Sleaford provides that the inquiry should be made by the Local Authority, whereas that of the hon. Member for East Northampton provides that "there shall be a public inquiry," which is, in my opinion, much better, because we all know the effect which a public meeting may produce on the action of the Local Authority. The hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham says that the only object of this clause is to put the machinery in motion; but we have no confidence in the machinery being put in operation at all, unless some pressure is brought to bear on the Local Authority. Therefore, I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend is better than the other one, and I hope it will be accepted.

MR. CONYBEARE

I should like to know the exact position in which the Committee is placed. Is this Amendment to be passed en bloc or not?

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question before the Committee is to strike out the words "where it appears to the satisfaction of the sanitary authority of any urban or rural district," in order to insert the words which have been proposed by the President of the Local Government Board.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, That the words 'on a representation in writing to the sanitary authority of any urban or rural district by any six registered Parliamentary electors resident, in the case of an urban district, in that district, and, in the case of a rural district, in some parish in that district, that the circumstances of the urban district or parish are such that it is the duty of the sanitary authority to take proceedings under this Act therein, the sanitary authority shall take such representation into consideration. If the sanitary authority of any urban or rural district are of opinion, either after inquiry made in consequence of such representation or otherwise ' be there inserted.

MR. CHANNING

I rise now to move that all the words in the Motion before the Committee after the words "in writing" be omitted, and that the words of my Amendment be substituted. As far as I am concerned, I have no partiality for the number "10." I took that number from the Bill which was recently before the House of Lords; but if the Committee prefer six, it is quite indifferent to me.

THE CHAIRMAN

I would suggest that the words in the Amendment may be retained down to the words "rural district," and then go on with the words "that they or other inhabitants of full age," &c.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I rise to Order. I think the Amendment I intend to propose comes before this. My Amendment is to omit the words "registered Parliamentary electors resident," in line 2, and to insert "residents."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "registered Parliamentary electors," in order to insert the words "persons of full age."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'registered Parliamentary electors' stand part of the proposed Amendment,"

MR. STAVELEY HILL

I would suggest "persons of full age resident." Would that meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Northampton?

MR. BRADLAUGH

Certainly; I accept that alteration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "registered Parliamentary electors resident," in order to insert the words "persons of full age resident."—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'resident Parliamentary electors resident' stand part of the Clause."

MR. RITCHIE

There is an obvious objection to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman—namely, that it will lead to difficulties, because it is not always possible to tell what constitutes "resident." It seems to me that the words proposed by the Government are words as wide as can be expected by anybody, and they include all who can have any claim to speak on behalf of the community among whom they live. We have not taken these words with any view of restriction, but in order to embrace as large a number of persons as possible. We take persons who have a recognized status, being upon the electoral roll, and we do not raise the question of whether a person is a resident or not.

MR. CONYBEARE

I am satisfied that the Government have not introduced the expression with the view of unduly restricting the number of persons who may be interested in making the representation; but I will place before the Committee one single fact which, I think, will convince them that, whether that is the object or not, it will certainly ' have that result. Everybody will admit that persons are only placed on a Parliamentary Register if they have paid by a certain date in the year the poor rate that became due in the month of January. I happen to know that among my constituents—and notwithstanding the taunt to which I have been subjected by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, I have a perfect right to speak on this subject, and I shall do so in the interests of my constituents— I happen to know that many of my constituents in the town of Camborne have been disqualified from being on the Register owing to the non-payment of their poor rates in the month of July. It is perfectly obvious that the non-payment of a few pence by a particular date is an absurdity of our Parliamentary Law, if it is to disqualify a man from being an elector. Certainly, in regard to this Bill, it ought not to disqualify people from having a voice in the matter. They may have paid the first half of the poor rate; but owing to neglect or forgetfulness, or some other cause, they may have omitted to pay the rest. They may have paid the highway rate, the school rate, and all the other rates, except the poor rate which was due in January; but if, from some accident, they have not paid that rate, they are at once disqualified from being on the Register. I therefore think it would be an absurdity to keep these words in.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

The Amendment which has been proposed is similar to one which I have on the Paper. I therefore desire to say a word to explain why I think the term "residents" would be much better in a country district than "householders" or "ratepayers." Those who will be most likely to desire to put this Act into force are the agricultural labourers; and in the country districts, as a rule, the agricultural labourers are not ratepayers, and very often are not Parliamentary electors. If, therefore, we desire to confer upon the agricultural labourers the means of moving the Local Authority to put this Act in operation, the only word which will include local labourers is the word "residents." I therefore support the Amendment.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I would make an appeal to the Committee to accept the words as they stand in the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, and to proceed with the Bill. In these days of widely extended franchise, if the labourers desire allotments, they will be easily able to make their wishes known. I would point out that this is strictly a Bill of detail, and it is impossible to say what number of details might not be put into the measure in a different form. If, however, we are to discuss every possibility on every Amendment in detail, I am afraid it will be impossible that the Bill can become law. The measure has been introduced by the Government in good faith, and I hope the Committee will assist them in carrying it forward.

MR. CONYBEARE

May I ask whether the remarks of the hon. Member are pertinent to the Question, which is whether "Parliamentary electors" shall be retained in the Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is urging expedition.

MR. F. S. POWELL

I was simply proceeding to remark that the Bill had been introduced into the House with a good object, and that if the main end and aim of it meet the wishes of the Committee—and we are desirous of seeing it become law—we ought to accept its provisions as far as possible, and avoid unnecessary delay.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON (Devon, Tavistock)

I think that the words "resident electors or ratepayers" would meet the case.

MR. RITCHIE

I am quite ready to accept that suggestion.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Scarcely any of the people I was thinking of would be ratepayers.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

I think an Amendment to that effect would go a considerable way towards meeting the difficulty, and for this reason—that these persons are not bound to make the representation as to their wishes themselves; and 1 do not think the persons who are contemplated by the hon. Member would have any great difficulty in finding the requisite number of ratepayers to make a representation on their behalf. Certainly, an extension of this power to the ratepayers would enlarge the operation of the clause.

VISCOUNT WOLMER (Hants, Petersfield)

I would suggest to the hon. Member for Northampton that he would get over the difficulty by saying "per- sons of full age resident for at least 12 months."

MR. STANSFELD

The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that the use of the term "residents" might lead to considerable confusion. Let me point out to him that there would be no practical confusion, because even if the statement addressed to the Local Authority should not be sufficiently signed or sufficiently definite in accordance with the terms of this measure, that would not necessarily destroy the validity of the application, because the authority has power, after an inquiry has been made, of doing certain things in consequence of such representation, or otherwise. Therefore, no confusion can arise; and I think it is most desirable, with a view to the effect on public opinion, that no person should be excluded from the right of making a representation.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

May I point out that there are practical objections to the use of this word? We only want to get as simple a representation as possible. These six persons would represent a much larger body, and we want a qualification. Nobody suggests that the phrase "registered Parliamentary electors" is not a large qualification; but it is suggested that something else might be better. If we insert the words "persons of full age resident," we at once raise difficult questions, which have often got us into trouble in the Courts of Law as to what constitutes "residents." By putting in "six registered Parliamentary electors," we include a large body of persons, and at once obtain persons who have a recognized status. If residence is fixed upon, it is clear that persons who are only temporary residents would not be included, nor would they be entitled to speak on behalf of other persons who are resident in a parish or an urban district. Six electors would really be representative of the whole body; and if there are not six who would come forward, there could not be much demand for allotments.

MR. BRAD LAUGH

I have no objection to accept the words "resident for 12 months;" but I do not think the qualification ought to be limited to "registered Parliamentary electors."

MR. COBB

Everyone who has had anything to do with an agricultural con- stituency knows that when arrangements are being made for registration, it is constantly asked, ''Why is not So-and-So on the Register?" and the general answer is, "Oh, he is not married." Therefore, there will be a large number of men who are much interested in having a voice in putting this Act in operation who will not be registered electors.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I think that, with the addition which has been accepted by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), we ought to be able to get over the difficulty. Of course, there is no desire that persons who may be living in a district for a week or two should have the right of setting the whole of this machinery in motion; but with the safeguard the hon. Member for Northampton has accepted of 12 months' residence, I. think the Amendment would be an improvement upon the proposal of the Government. There are certainly many men who are qualified to be on the Parliamentary Register who are not upon it. In small parishes it might be extremely difficult to get six of the farmers to make a representation in favour of allotments for the agricultural labourers, and yet they might be the only persons on the Parliamentary Register.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 112: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 406.)

Amendment made to the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,

To leave out from the word "district," in line 4, to end of the Amendment, in order to insert the words "that the circumstances that they or other inhabitants of full age of such district are desirous of obtaining, but cannot obtain on reasonable terms, allotments, and that there is land suitable and available for allotments within such district, or within a reasonable distance thereof, the sanitary authority shall hold, or cause to be held, a public inquiry within such district, and unless at such public inquiry the allegations contained in such representation are proved to be without foundation or if."—(Mr. Charming.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite. An application could not be made to the Sanitary Authority, and the inquiry could not be held, without a large amount of trouble and expense; and if, as might very well be, the Sanitary Authority after holding the inquiry were to decide that there was no ground for the application, all the expense and friction involved would have been incurred in vain. But there is another objection— namely, that without the hon. Member's words, the authorities might, on the representation made to them, be satisfied that the demand was bonâ fide, and might proceed to put the Act in force; but the proposal of the hon. Gentleman would necessitate a public inquiry being held under all circumstances, and this, as I have shown, might do harm, and would be always accompanied by a large amount of friction and expense. I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to press this Amendment on the Committee.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton.E.)

I think the right hon. Gentleman has missed the point of my Amendment. If the Sanitary Authority has reason to doubt the horn files of the representation made to them, they will, of course, hold a public inquiry; but otherwise they will not hold an inquiry, and it is left perfectly free to them also to act on their own opinion, without any representation being made to them.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 164; Noes 80: Majority 84. — (Div. List, No. 407.)

Proposed Amendment, as amended, put, and agreed to.

MR. CHANNING

I object to the words "a considerable demand." I think needless difficulties and discussions might arise in determining what is a "considerable" demand.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, leave out the words "any considerable," and insert, "a." — (Mr. Channing.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. RITCHIE

I think the hon. Member will see that no Local Autho- rity would be justified in putting into operation the machinery of the Bill unless there was reason to believe that a considerable number of people desired to avail themselves of the Act. If, however, the word "considerable" is thought by the Committee to be too wide, I suggest that we might substitute for it "sufficient."

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

I wish that the Government, in drawing up this Bill, had abstained from the use of adjectives, because they are terms the meaning of which may be interpreted variously by different persons, and are, therefore, not likely to facilitate the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will specify the number of 10 or 20 persons, then I think there will be much less difficulty, because, as the Bill now stands, one person might interpret the word "considerable" to mean 10 persons, and another 50. That is the difficulty which we desire to avoid. We have no great confidence in the authority which is to carry out this Bill, and we want to see it specified that the authority shall be bound to act when a certain number of labourers agree together to ask that the Act may be put in operation.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

We should remember, in the first place, that the authority named in the Bill is only a temporary one, and that when the County Authority is created the matter will rest with them. Under the Amendment of the hon. Member it might be that only two persons would ask for the Bill to be put in operation. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will accept the compromise offered by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinsford)

I cannot say that the word "sufficient" carries any more idea to my mind than the word "considerable," and therefore think it an unsuitable phrase. Would not my right hon. Friend find it much better to insert such words as "where there is a demand for," say, "not less than five acres?" We all know that the quantities taken for gardens vary generally from 12 to 15 rods, and therefore five acres would give us space for about 25 persons. I venture to think that the word "considerable," and the word "sufficient" convey no clear idea, and I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to my suggestion.

MR RITCHIE

Hon. Members will recollect that we are dealing with an authority which is responsible for all action connected with local affairs and matters upon which the life and health of the people depend; and surely it is rather too much that the House of Commons should be so rigid in its instructions to the Local Authority as to define the actual number of acres to be applied for allotments. I would appeal to the Committee as to whether any one of the Amendments we have been discussing at such length is for one moment to be put in comparison with the passage of this Bill? The matters we have been discussing are of the most trivial import.

MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)

I think the right hon. Gentleman has, by the remarks he has just made, shown his ignorance of the feeling of the working classes with regard to this question. These may seem minor questions to the right hon. Gentleman; but I can assure him that they are of largo importance to the people in our villages. The hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) says that it would be objectionable if two persons only were to make an application to the Sanitary Authority to put the machinery of the Bill in force. But why should not the Sanitary Authority, even in the case of one man, buy an acre of land or less and let the man have what he wants? This man's example might induce others to do the same. The whole difficulty of dealing with this Bill arises from one thing— namely, that the people have no confidence whatever in the authority who will have to put this Act in force. My hon. Friend said just now that this authority was only temporary. But my hon. Friend is mistaken in that; he will find that the County Authority will be no authority to put this Act in force, and I am of opinion that there is no prospective advantage to be hoped for from that body. For my part, I do not think it is necessary to have any such word here as "considerable" or "sufficient."

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

The hon. Gentleman asks why we should object to one or two labourers having allotments. The real questions with regard to allotments is the price at which they can be obtained. Are you to get land which is exactly what you require, or are you to buy land and fence it round? Because if you have to fence it you will add to the price of the land considerably. If the Local Authorities find they can get a piece of land of the right size, then, I say, if there are only three applicants for allotments let them buy it; but do not compel them to buy a field or a portion of a field for three persons and then have to fence it round. I can assure hon. Members that if they wish the Bill to be effective they must pass it in such a form as will enable the labourers to get the land at a fair price.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

I wish to point out that the Sanitary Authority will have it in their power to grant or refuse, and that I think is the reason why we should not bind down the authority by putting words in the clause of minimizing force.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

It is not exact on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Amendments which have been discussed this evening are trivial, nor is it true that they have been discussed at great length. I agree that this Amendment is one of a most important character; and it is not fair, because the Government have left the Bill to almost the last week in the Session, to say that we are interrupting the course of Business by exercising our proper right of discussion.

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there would be no important change made if he could see his way to leave out the word "considerable?" It would be then left to the Sanitary Authority to interpret the meaning of the clause.

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

I would point out with regard to the Cheshire parishes that they are not such as are generally understood in this district. The parishes in Cheshire often consist of four or five farms, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman to bear this in mind in considering the effect of the words "sufficient demand," because otherwise we should be placed in a position of some difficulty in my county.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'a' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. FULLER (Wilts, Westbury)

It seems to me not only that we should impress on the Sanitary Authority the necessity of considering the question of field allotments, but that they should also consider the question of extension of gardens attached to cottages. The field allotments have this object—namely, to save, to a considerable extent, the wages of the labourer, to enable him to occupy his leisure hours; and they are to be given also because it is considered that, to a great extent, they will prevent the influx of the rural population into towns. There is another object also in providing allotments for labourers, and that is the general sanitary improvement of cottages. I think the Committee will see that by an enlargement of the gardens attached to cottages they will very much widen the scope of the domestic comforts of the occupants, and that while providing for the health of the children who live in them there will be a better means of disposing of the refuse which is often to be found in cottages that are without gardens. Further, there are some persons among the class we are dealing with who require a more extensive area than they have for carrying out their calling—that is to say, an area which will enable them to erect a shed for a pony or pig, and to meet some other requirements. For these reasons I think we ought to give instructions to the Sanitary Authorities to consider the question of the extension of gardens attached to cottages. Hon. Members will have noticed that cottages in the country are often built on small patches of waste land, and that the cottagers have not sufficient garden ground; they will find also adjacent to these cottages large fields, notwithstanding which there are no means for the cottager to extend his garden. We should also bear in mind that enclosures have done much to prevent the extension of cottage gardens. In my opinion, landlords will very often be extremely glad to let off or sell land to the Sanitary Authorities for the purpose of providing gardens for cottages. My proposal is to enable the Local Sanitary Authority compulsorily to purchase strips of land, and to attach them to the cottages in the form of gardens. The Returns show that out of a total number of 2,000,000 labourers' cottages in England and Wales only 262,000 have gardens to the extent of an eighth of an acre attached to them. For these reasons I ask the Committee to agree to the Amendment I have placed on the Paper.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, after "allotments," insert "or extension of gardens contiguous to houses."— (Mr. Fuller.)

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

I beg to assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Westbury Division of "Wilts that I entirely sympathize with the object he has in view, and I should be glad to see the labourers' cottages though out this country with an adequate portion of garden ground attached to them. But I would point out that this is a very different matter to that contemplated by the Bill, which is intended to provide field allotments and not gardens for agricultural labourers. There are several objections however to the proposal of the hon. Member. In the first place, although a tenant might desire addition to the garden ground of the cottage the owner of the cottage might have an objection to this. Again, one tenant may be perfectly able to pay 10s. or 15s. a-year for additional garden ground, but an incoming tenant might not be at all inclined to pay for this piece of land, and it might be that the Sanitary Authority having acquired the land would find afterwards that it was not required at all. There are, in short, many objections to extending the provisions of this Bill in the direction indicated, and as I have said the allotments which are here contemplated are field allotments, and not garden ground.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I would draw attention to a fact which, perhaps, is not present in the mind of the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment—namely, that the Act of 1885, relating to the housing of the working classes, gives exactly the power which my lion. Friend wishes to see added to this Bill. I think my hon. Friend has drawn attention to a most interesting subject; but I hope he will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

I think this discussion is an illustration of the inconvenience of enter- ing upon a question of this kind without the Committee having laid before them a clear definition of the word "allotment." My hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment has extracted something like a definition from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who says that the term "allotment" usually means a field allotment. It seems to me that the definition of the right hon. Gentleman takes away nine-tenths of the Bill. I believe that the Amendment of the hon. Member would be a valuable addition to the Act, inasmuch as gardens are infinitely more useful to the labourers than field allotments. Further, I believe there is no great demand by agricultural labourers for allotments; but for artizans it is, in my opinion, most desirable that they should have something in the nature of a garden attached to their houses. I was in hopes that the right hon. Gentleman would tell us that this Amendment was unnecessary, because the term "allotment" includes garden ground. An hon. Gentleman says, "so it does." I sincerely hope that it is so, but I must say that the arguments of my hon. Friend for introducing his Amendment were not answered by the right hon. Gentleman. We often see in the country long rows of desolate houses without gardens, and I think it is desirable, above all things, and reasonable as well, that the Sanitary Authority should be able to take a strip of land behind those cottages and cut it up for garden purposes. I do not understand the details of the allotment question as regards England, but I am of opinion that we should do well to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for "Westbury.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

I think if the word "allotment" is not to include extension of gardens, we shall lose a large portion of the value of this Bill. There are in all parts rows of houses with little pieces of garden ground attached that are quite insufficient for the purpose of growing garden stuff for the family of the cottager, and it is these small pieces of ground that the Amendment proposes to extend. It is of no use to offer the occupiers of these houses a piece of land a mile off, because, among oilier reasons, the cottager would have to get artificial manure for them. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board says that it might be found that an incoming tenant would object to paying for the additional garden ground; but, on the other hand, there are people who would want the cottages because there was a reasonable patch of garden ground attached, and in that way the owner's property would be rendered more valuable. Therefore I think the difficulty raised by the right hon. Gentleman does not exist. It has been said that the Act of 1885 provides for the extension of garden ground in the case of labourers. It may be that there is such a provision; but, if so, it certainly does not work in Ireland, and in some parts of England, where there are undoubtedly many labourers' cottages which would be greatly improved by the extension of the gardens attached to them. I consider that this Act would be very workable in Ireland, and I hope not only that the hon. Member will press his Amendment, but that the clause which limits the Bill to England will be struck out.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

I happen to be a large employer of labour, and I find that many of my men live a mile away from the works because they can get cottages with gardens. That, I think, shows the value which is attached by the working classes to the right of obtaining garden allotments. I think the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Westbury Division of Wilts (Mr. Fuller) would have a desirable effect; because the more men have the opportunity of cultivating flowers and vegetables, the more they are attached to the soil. Therefore, in my opinion, my hon. Friend has raised a valuable point, and I trust he will divide the Committee on his Amendment, which I should be glad if the Government would accept, even if they do so in a modified form.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) has advocated that this Bill should be amended in the way which the hon. Member for Westbury proposes, and made to apply to Ireland. He says he would prefer the Bill to the Labourers' Act which now exists. That may be so; but, so far as the clause now before the Committee is concerned, I would certainly prefer that the matter should be fought out by Members on both sides of the House, which will show whether the Bill is an electioneering dodge or not. If we see that it will be of any use to the English working classes, then I think we may reasonably ask that it should be extended to Ireland.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

I think the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for the Westbury Division of Wilts (Mr. Fuller) is a very valuable one. Everyone who knows anything of rural life will be aware that there is a large class of people who could make use of garden allotments, but who could not use allotments of another kind. I rather object to the form of the Amendment, however, which deals with the extension of gardens, but does not include the creation of gardens. I recognize that there is some difficulty on the ground pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) in the case of the owners of cottages. The hon. and gallant Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) has told us that the value of the property would be enhanced by the gardens being extended; but I doubt whether the owner of the cottage is entitled to have his property enhanced in value at the expense of the landowner. There are, however, many cases in which this difficulty would not arise; and although I do not think the best way of dealing with the matter would be to introduce the words proposed into this clause, I suggest that it should be stated in the interpretation clause that the term "allotment" includes land for gardens.

MR. RITCHIE

I shall be very glad to consider the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), which, I think, is by far the most practical way of dealing with this matter. We have no wish to prevent what is sought to be done, and I will take care that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is attended to.

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

It is often the case that rows of cottages have a piece of garden land attached which is cut up into small strips and patches, and as it is desirable that these should be extended, I ask whether the term "allotment" will include the extension of these pieces of land for the convenience of those who occupy the cottages?

MR. RITCHIE

I think there will, be no difficulty in the way of the Sanitary Authorities malting arrangements for the extension of these allotments.

SIR. GEORGE CAMPBELL

I think the Government ought to state clearly what is meant by the term "allotment." I understand now that it includes garden ground.

MR. FULLER

After the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby:)

I attach great importance to the Amendment I am about to move, because, as hon. Members opposite are aware, the Boards of Guardians are composed almost entirely of farmers, assisted by magistrates who are ex officio members of the Boards. We are anxious, as far as possible, knowing that the Boards of Guardians will not be favourable to putting the Act in force, to leave no loop hole to these unwilling authorities by which they can escape the duty which the Bill is intended to impose upon them. There are a number of loop holes provided by the clause, and my Amendment is intended to remove one of them by striking out the words "and that it would be to the public advantage to provide allotments to meet such demand." What will happen is this — the Rural Sanitary Authority will be represented in a particular parish by one or two Guardians; a meeting will be called to consider the requisition which has been presented to the Local Authority by six men in the parish, in accordance with that part of the clause which, has been already agreed to. They will consider at length whether there is a demand for allotments in the parish; then they will hold another meeting to satisfy themselves whether or not it is for the public advantage that the requisition should be complied with. Now, quite apart from the delay which will be occasioned by these deliberations, I do not see that the public advantage has anything to do with the question. If it is to the advantage of the labourers to have these allotments, and if it can be done without any charge on the parish, I cannot see why it should have to be proved to be for the public advantage. The introduction of a Bill to deal with, this question rests in itself upon the admission that it is for the public advantage that those allotments should be obtained, and I contend therefore that the words which I propose to strike out ought cot to be in the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, lines 9 and 10, leave out the words "and that it would be to the public advantage to provide allotments to meet such demand."— (Mr. Cobb.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I have no special objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member; it appears to be the general opinion that a provision for allotments will be for the public advantage.

MR. RITCHIE

I do not attach any special value to these words. Of course, no Sanitary Authorities would be justified in putting the Act in operation unless they believed that it was for the public advantage. I consent to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

I should like to understand that the expressions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite apply also to the words of the Clause that I propose to strike out, by the Amendment of which I have given Notice. I propose to leave out from the clause the words— And that such allotments cannot be obtained at a reasonable rent by voluntary arrangement between the owners of land suitable for such, allotments and the applicants for the same. If the Committee will expunge these words, I do not think it will in any way limit the power of the Sanitary Authorities in this matter. By agreeing to this Amendment, we shall be simply removing from the forefront of the Bill words which seem to give precedence to the voluntary principle. This Bill is a recognition of the fundamental right of every labourer to apply for land, but I do not think it ought to be encumbered by this intimation that it would be better and wiser for the men to come to an arrangement themselves with the owners of land. An article in The Times explains that it is desirable to resort to the voluntary' system for the purpose of cultivating a spirit of gratitude on the part of the labourers to the owners of land. But I point out that gratitude generally moans in cases of this kind the expectation of a vote, and that is the reason why I object to the retention of these words. I believe in the compulsory principle of this Bill, as a recognition that everyone has a right to an allotment. I believe that that right is inherent in every man, and that is why I desire to see these words struck out.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word "and" to the word "same," in line 13, both inclusive.—(Mr. Halley Stewart.)

Question propose, "That the words 'and that such allotments cannot be obtained,' stand part of the Clause."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

I must say I differ entirely from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Halley Stewart). I should be sorry, indeed, to see all idea of voluntary arrangements between landowners and. those who desire to have allotments unrecognized in this Bill. As I said in introducing the Bill, we believe the voluntary mode of arrangement is extremely desirable. I am not going to use the word "gratitude," or any word which may shock the sensibilities of hon. Gentlemen, but I believe that it is of great consequence that there should be good feeling between landlord and tenant, between employer and labourer, and I am satisfied you cannot promote good feeling between these persons hotter than endeavouring to bring them together. And, further than that, I do not believe you would be justified in setting in motion the machinery of this Bill by which the rates might possibly be appealed to if the demand could be supplied voluntarily and without its aid. The Local Authority ought certainly to consider before putting the machinery of the Bill in motion whether or not the demand which exists is supplied by the voluntary arrangements between landowners and those who desire to have allotments.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Halley Stewart) (Derby)

raises, no doubt, a very important principle. I do not wish to discuss it at any great length, but no doubt the essence of this Bill is, to use a phrase which, has been employed in these discussions before, that the inhabitants of a village shall depend for allotments upon the community, and not upon the individual. It is not merely a question between compulsory and voluntary action, but it is this—to whom is a person to look for the right to occupy a portion of the soil of the country to which he belongs? Is he to look simply to individual proprietors, or is he to look to the community in which he lives? Everyone knows that in countries such as Switzerland, where small holdings are most flourishing, the recognized principle is that the land is the property of the community, and that the individuals depend upon the community for the right to occupy the soil. I do not wish, in the least degree, to say anything contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has said as to the desirability of cultivating friendly relations between landlord and labourer, but the labourer should not be dependent upon the landlord. It is possible to conceive a landlord of ungenerous mind, and therefore it should not be in the power of such a man to oust the inhabitants from these holdings, to hold the loss of them, as it were, in terrorem over them for any purpose he may choose — in. order, for instance, to compel them to work for lower wages, or to compel them to work on a particular farm. I, therefore, think that a most important principle is involved in this Amendment. What we really do want is to give to these occupiers in rural districts, and in urban districts also, the security that they have to look, not to the individual proprietors, but to the community at large. I do not want to intrude on voluntary action in this matter. If there is a voluntary supply, that ought to be considered before you have resort to compulsory powers. That I am quite willing to admit, but there is a difficulty about this clause which seems to lie in the words "a reasonable rent." I hope that ultimately—when we get a Local Government Bill—we shall have some better authority than the Board of Guardians. That, unfortunately, is the great evil—I do not say it is an unavoidable evil—in this Bill. You have got an authority which, I believe. for this purpose, is not a good authority; it is an authority which is rather averse than favourable to the objects of the Bill. If the authority wishes not to do the thing they may hold a very high rent to be a reasonable rent. For instance, a landowner may say—" I am willing to let allotments at the rate of £4 or £5 an acre." Now, suppose the Guardians choose to say that is a reasonable rent, they may consider, in. the words of this Bill, that "allotments cannot be obtained at a reasonable rent," and hold that to be a reason for not acting at all. They may hold that £5 an acre is a reasonable rent. I admit these difficulties lie in the distrust of the authority itself; and I hope that hereafter we shall be able to get a better authority. However, I do not see myself why we should have these words in the clause after all, except for the purpose of what you may call a declaration of principle. We do not want to fly the flag of compulsion unnecessarily; but, if we can do the thing without these words, I do not see why they should not be omitted.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I quite agree that in moving this Amendment the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spalding Division (Mr. Halley Stewart) has raised a very important question. I shall not enter into the question of the right of every person to occupy a certain portion of land; though I am afraid that if the hon. Member and his Friends were to compare the population of the country with the number of cultivable acres they would find there are not acres enough within the limits of the country to enable them to carry out their doctrine legitimately and truly. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) says he does not perceive any sufficient reason for keeping these words in the clause. I do not agree with him. I do see such a reason, and I think I shall be able to show him that it is a good and sufficient reason. My reason for wishing to retain the words is precisely the same as that for which hon. Members desire to exclude them. Hon. Gentlemen desire to exclude these words because they say the words appear to give precedence to the voluntary principle. I think that, beyond all question, precedence ought to be given to the voluntary principle, and upon this point I should have thought there could hardly have been a difference of opinion. Surely, upon every conceivable ground, it is desirable and right to avoid converting the Local Authority into a landlord having all the responsibility of a landlord upon it. I contend that the best, and cheapest, and most satisfactory way, in the interests of the labourers themselves, is that allotments should be provided for them by the owners of the land by voluntary means. Let me ask hon. Members to consider a given state of circumstances. Take the case of bad times or bad seasons, and assume that the Local Authority has become the landlord, and that the holdings are held as tenancies under them. Suppose that a labourer holding a tolerably large allotment has been subjected to some of the excessively bad seasons from which farmers frequently suffer. The unfortunate mail, owing to losses through no fault of his own, is possibly unable to pay the rent which is due for his allotment. Under such circumstances, to whom, do you suppose, a labourer in this country would rather go? Would he rather go to the Parish Board and ask them to give him time to pay his rent in? Or would he rather go to the landlord on whose estate he has been brought up, and with whom he is possibly on friendly relations? There is another consideration which must not be lost sight of under these circumstances. A landlord is dealing with property which is his own, and in regard to which he can do exactly as he pleases, and make whatever remissions he likes; but the Local Authority will be only trustees. What right will they have to remit rent, and so inflict losses on the ratepayers in regard to property for which they are responsible? I cannot conceive that it can be contended, or logically defended by argument, that it is desirable that these proceedings should be carried out by compulsory rather than by voluntary means; and it is precisely because I do agree with hon. Members that the Bill does give precedence to the voluntary principle that I sincerely hope these words will be retained.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

I think that this clause throughout, and especially the portion of it which my hon. Friend the Member for the Spalding Division (Mr. Halley Stewart) has proposed to omit, indicates what has been stated—the distrust of the Government of the very authority they are giving these powers to. The Government, in giving this power, wish to hedge it round with every possible safeguard; and they are suggesting now that the Boards of Guardians shall not take any action for providing allotments unless Boards of Guardians think allotments cannot be attained by voluntary means at reasonable rents. Why, a reasonable rent, in the opinion of the gentlemen who form Boards of Guardians, may be £6 10s. an acre. I know a case where allotments are being held at this rent, and that in the same district where the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are letting land at £2 an acre. If you give power to an authority like this to say what is a reasonable rent, you do the very thing to make this bad authority not do the work the Act asks them to do. In the interests of labourers and landlords, in the interests of the passing of this Bill, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to accede to the Amendment of my hon. Friend. To do so will certainly save time, and will not affect the voluntary principle. Surely, if hon. Gentlemen have faith in the voluntary principle, they do not want to bolster it up in this way.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E)

The reason why I intend to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Spalding Division (Mr. Hally Stewart) is that these words are opposed to the whole principle of the Bill. If voluntary arrangements are to be relied upon solely, what need is there at all for the Bill? If the voluntary principle is already meeting the demand, there will be no need for this Act to be put in force. These words are not at all consonant with the principle of the Bill, and therefore I hope the Government will agree to their omission.

MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E, Rugby)

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) quite understands the point we are discussing. It is admitted all round that the labourer or artizan should, if possible, get his land direct from the landlord. It is quite clear that if he can arrange with the landlord he gets land at a cheaper rate than he would get it from the Public Authority. If he can get it, well and good; but the right hon. Gentleman compared the mode of getting land from the landlord with the mode of getting it through the exercise of compulsory powers. That is not the question. The question here is—whether or not the Local Authority is to be the judge of what is a reasonable rent. One of the great principles of this Bill, as explained by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, is that the community shall supply land. Now, surely it is a more independent thing for a man to get land from the community in which we hope that, at all events, some day he will have some power in electing the people who are to put this Act in force. Why is he, before he goes to the Local Authority, to go to the landlord, cap in hand, and say—"I have come to you to ask for land. I do not want the land very much, but I am obliged, before going to the Local Authority, to go through the form and degradation to some extent of coming to you, and begging for land in order that I can go to the Local Authority, and say that you will not give it mo." [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] That is so. The provision as it stands gives another loophole to the Local Authority through which to escape from putting the Act in force. I hope I am not pressing this matter too strongly, but I do not think it can be put in too many different ways. These Local Authorities are like wheelbarrows; they will go just so far as they are pushed, and no farther. I want to remove from them every opportunity or excuse for obstructing the operation of this Act, and therefore I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

This Amendment embodies a most important principle, and it is desirable that we should understand what that principle is. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), if they are worth anything at all, would have been useful before the Government were converted to the principle contained in this Bill. The observations of the right hon. Gentleman went to show that landlords had done, and will do, exactly what this Bill is introduced in order to compel them to do. A case has just been cited by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derbyshire (Sir Walter Foster), in which one landlord insists upon exacting £6 10s. an acre for land which is not worth £2. [An hon. MEMBER: Nonsense!] It is not nonsense. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sussex lots his allotments at a lower price; but in many other parts of the country the labourers do have to pay four times as much—[An hon. MEMBER: Six times as much.] Yes; I know they do pay six times as much in some cases, but I want to put it at a fair average; but in many other parts of the country labourers have to pay four times as much as they ought to be required to pay. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) amounted to this—that landlords might be trusted to do what is right or necessary in this behalf, and that therefore we ought not to introduce any provision of this kind. That argument goes to the whole root of the Bill, and if it is true—I maintain it is not—there would have been no necessity for introducing this Bill at all. The Amendment which the hon. Member for the Spalding Division (Mr. Halley Stewart) has introduced is an important one, and I insist upon it. I take the opportunity of supporting him in it, because my view is that in this question of land the landowner's power ought to be and in the future must be curtailed. We have had enough of absolute power on the part of landowners. What we want to reach is the nationalization of the land. You are proposing it in a modified form —you are proposing the communalization of land. I warn you that you are introducing the thin edge of the wedge which, in the long run, will deprive all landlords of the rights they have usurped. All we want to make as plain as possible, now that we have an opportunity, is that the land belongs to the people, and not to individuals, and that it is to the people that individual members of the community should look for the acquisition of the rights they have been deprived of so long.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

The difficulty I have in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Halley Stewart) is that the words proposed to be left out necessarily involve that there should be an attempt on the part of those applying for allotments to obtain them by voluntary agreement before applying to the Local Authority.

MR. HALLEY STEWART

I will not detain the Committee for more than a moment. All I desire to point out is that the omission of these words will not affect, in the slightest degree, the power of the Local Authority to carry out the spirit of the words which are herein contained, and therefore I cannot understand why the Government should be so reluctant to take them out. The Authority will have exactly the same power of acting on these words if they are out of the Bill as if they were in the Bill.

MR. HOLLOWAY (Gloucestershire, Stroud)

My reason for objecting to this Amendment is that I am most thoroughly in favour of the voluntary system. I contend that the effect of this Bill will be that where landowners and farmers have not hitherto provided allotments, when they find that their labourers must be provided with allotments, they will at once set about providing them by voluntary arrangement, and I think that is very much more desirable than the provision of them by the putting in force of the machinery of this Bill. A great deal has been said about the Boards of Guardians and the Local Sanitary Authorities not being popular bodies. I have had great experience of Boards of Guardians, and also of Local Sanitary Authorities in towns, and I have no hesitation in saying that the gentlemen who form these bodies perform their duties in the best interests of the localities. It must not be forgotten, of course, that they represent others than the working men of their districts; they represent every class and every interest in their localities, and they very much wish that the framers of this Bill should define what their duties are to be. I believe that the effect of this Bill will be that allotments will be provided by voluntary means, and that is why I approve of the retention of these words.

MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W,)

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that the omission of these words involves no considerable concession on the part of the Government. There is no principle involved in the Amendment; but the acceptance of the Amendment would be of enormous advantage to the people requiring allotments. If the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter, I am sure he would see that the Amendment will not weaken the voluntary principle at all, but leave that principle precisely where it is now, while removing the great objection entertained to the wording of the clause. If the right hon. Gentleman would only meet my hon. Friend the Member for the Spalding Division (Mr. Halley Stewart) in this respect, we should be extremely glad. None of us approach this subject in a spirit of contention; but all desire to make the Bill as real as possible, and to make its working as smooth and as rapid as possible. I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman will assent to the Amendment.

MR. RITCHIE

No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot do that. There is a real difference of principle between us and hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is, however, no question between us upon the point that where there is a willing buyer and seller, the Local Authority have no right or cause to step in and pledge the rates of the community in order to provide that which can, at a reasonable rate, be provided by a voluntary arrangement between buyer and seller. The whole object of these words is to show to the Local Authority that they must have that consideration in their minds before they dispose of an application that is made to them.

SIR WALTER FOSTER

We do not suppose that they would be such bad men of business as to attempt to buy land compulsorily, when there was a chance of getting it at a fair rent by voluntary arrangement.

Question put.

The Committee divided:— Ayes 137; Noes 72: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 408). [8.50 P.M.]

MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)

In the temporary absence of my hon. Friend the Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derby (Sir Walter Foster), I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name—namely, to leave out the words "at a reasonable rent" in line 11. My hon. Friend's object in wishing to leave out these words is that the word "reasonable" is an indefinite term, and imposes upon the Local Authority another duty which it ought not to be called upon to fulfil, and that, therefore, they are less able probably to carry out the Act than they otherwise would be.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, leave out the words "at a reasonable rent."—(Mr. Cobb.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed, to be left out, stand part of the Clause."

THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG) (Wilts, Devizes)

I am sure the Government cannot accept this Amendment. The arguments used against the last Amendment apply equally to this. The words "reasonable rent" raise a great principle, and are important to the wise and proper carrying out of this Bill.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

I propose to define what a "reasonable rent" should be according to the definition which has been previously made by Parliament, and incorporated in the Allotments Extension Act of 1882. I object to the words "reasonable rent" here on the ground that they leave to the discretion of every one of these Boards of Guardians, more especially in rural districts, the duty of defining what "reasonable rent" is. As I have quoted one instance to the Committee which some hon. Gentleman opposite seem to doubt, I will quote it again. I know a district in which very recently allotments were let at a rent as high as £10 per acre. [Cries of "Where?"] In Derbyshire. Representations were made upon the question, and the rents were reduced to £6 10s. per acre. In the same parish the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are letting allotments at £2 per acre; but, as a matter of fact, the agricultural value of the land in the parish is 25s. per acre. If you have a body of people who regarded £6 10s. an acre as a reasonable rent when the agricultural value of the land in the same parish is only 25s. per acre, there is a danger of these people interpreting the words "reasonable rent" in such a way as would prevent the compulsory clause of this Bill being put into force. The Government have in this matter proceeded with that caution which produces paralysis. By the inclusion of the words "reasonable rent" they establish another barrier—there are four or five in the clause—against bringing the compulsory powers of the Bill into force. I believe that is a bad policy, and a bad policy in their own interests. I believe that voluntary methods will be increased the stronger the compulsory powers are made in the Act. Landlords will not want the compulsory powers to be exercised, and they in their own interests will give allotments at reasonable rents to labourers. But by putting these several barriers in the way of the provision of allotments, the Government will produce irritation, disaffection, and annoyance in the minds of the labourers in every rural parish in England. The labourers in the rural districts are at the present time disaffected and discontented enough, I do not want them in the interests of a much higher conservatism than that which seems to animato hon. Gentleman opposite, to be kept any longer than is necessary in a condition of disaffection and discontent. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Halley Stewart) that men have an inherent right to the occupation of the soil. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) says that there would not be land enough in the country to enable us to put our doctrine into force. There is plenty of land in the country available for allotments, and no difficulty on that score exists to the application of our principle. On these grounds, I ask the Committee to take out these words in order that afterwards a definition of "reasonable rent" may be inserted. The definition I suggest is— At such a vent as (exclusive of tithe, tithe-rent charge, rates and taxes), land of the same quality is usually let for in the same parish. It is a definition of "reasonable rent" which has been accepted by another Parliament, a definition of which my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings)—whose support I claim for this Amendment—approved.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

This Amendment does not refer to land that has been acquired by compulsory purchase. It does not refer to land rented by Local Authorities. If so, it is not necessary, because there is an arrangement that the land let by Local Authorities should be let as cheaply as possible, so that there should be no loss accruing to Local Authorities. But, as according to this voluntary principle you have created labourers, when they ask for land, are to be referred to the landowners to see if they can get it voluntarily before the Sanitary Authority moves, it becomes a question as to what price they are to get it at, and I hope the Government will see that getting it at a price above the market price is not for the purpose of the Act getting it at all. Some standard of price should be set up. It can do no harm to the landowner, because surely the landlord does not want to get more from the labourer for an allotment than he gets for his other land. That being so, I believe that this Amendment would give protection to the labourer that he should not be over-rented. I can quite see that there may be a reason for a landowner charging a little more on account of his legal expenses, and therefore it may be well to insert the word "about" in the definition of a "reasonable rent," which the hon. Member (Sir Walter Foster) suggests, so that the definition would read— At about such a rent as land of the same quality is usually let for in the same parish. Then I take it that my hon. Friend means that the rent shall be exclusive of tithe, tithe rent charge, rates and taxes, and "other outgoings which rightly belong to the land." If the Government will accept a definition such as I suggest, I do not think that any injury would be done to the landlord by this clause. What is wanted is that the labourer shall be protected from being over-rented.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

It is impossible to discuss various Amendments under one; the discussion will be shortened if we keep to one Amendment. We are now discussing whether the question of the rent at which allotments can be obtained under the voluntary principle shall or shall not be taken into consideration by the Local Authority before they put the compulsory powers into force. If we are going to define "reasonable rent," let us define it in the proper place. I am quite prepared to reason this matter out on its merits. we consider, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) put it very plainly, that there was a case of hardship which ought to be met. It is said "Allotments can be got; A B and C are willing to let them." The reply may be "Yes, but they are charging unreasonable rents." The omission of these words, however, will have an effect contrary to what the hon. Member (Sir Walter Foster) imagines. If it is our object that allotments shall be obtained at a reasonable rent, it is clear that these words ought to remain in the clause. However, "reasonable rent" may be defined, we do consider that the Local Authority ought not to put the public rates in peril—ought not to bring into operation this machinery for acquiring land; they ought to satisfy themselves that land cannot be obtained at a reasonable rent on the voluntary principle.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

I think that, practically speaking, there is not a great deal of difference between us. We admit there should be a reasonable rent, but we think that there ought to be an instruction to the Boards of Guardians as to what a reasonable rent is, and that that instruction should practically be that the rent should be rent equivalent to the ordinary agricultural value. Now, we are all agreed about that, the only question is of arranging how it is to be done, whether the definition of reasonable rent shall come in here or at the end of the subsections, or elsewhere in the Bill. We ought to have an understanding with the Government that an instruction will be given to the Local Authorities that a reasonable rent means an ordinary agricultural rent.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I was discussing simply and solely the question of whether the words should be left out at this point or not. In my opinion, these words must stand here for the purpose of protecting those who desire allotments. It is impossible to discuss now what is, or what is not, a reasonable rent.

VISCOUNT WOLMER (Hants, Petersfield)

We, on this side of the House, who feel that there is a real opening for mismanagement by the Local Authority under the clause as it stands now, cannot consent to allow these words to remain in the clause unless we have an assurance from the Government that they will be properly defined afterwards. Those of us who have experience of agricultural constituencies know that Boards of Guardians are quite likely to interpret this word "reasonable" in what we consider a very unreasonable manner. Therefore, I certainly am not prepared to vote for the insertion of these words until I know how they will afterwards be defined.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

I agree with the noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) that we ought not to allow such unmeaning words as "reasonable rent" to remain in the clause unless we have some promise that they will be defined. I do not think that we have yet hit upon what should be the definition of "reasonable rent." I myself have tried to draw up a definition, but I have not been successful. Possibly the definition suggested by the hon. Member (Sir Walter Foster) may be considered a proper one.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I must repeat that I am perfectly willing to undertake to insert upon Report a definition if it is desired, but these words cannot be left out here. I ought not to be asked to pledge myself to a particular form of definition. I quite agree that a definition ought to be inserted, and of course if the present one is not satisfactory it can be dealt with on Report, but some such words as these must be left in the clause.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

If the Government undertake that they will bring up a definition later on, I cannot see the objection to letting these words remain.

SIR WALTER FOSTER

Will the hon. and learned Attorney General bring the definition up before we leave Committee?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Certainly.

MR.CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

Before this discussion concludes, I should like to call the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney General to the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) in the debate on the second reading of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said distinctly that one of the principles of the Bill was that allotments should be let at the ordinary agricultural price of the land.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) will not recede from any words he has used. Again, I must plead that I ought not to be asked to insert a definition at this stage.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

The whole question lies in this, that if agricultural labourers cannot get allotments at a reasonable rent the whole Act becomes a failure.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I trust that after the undertaking which the hon. and learned Attorney General has given the Amendment will be withdrawn. The undertaking is given very plainly, and without any qualification. I think that it would be well that the Amendment should now be withdrawn and the definition brought up subsequently.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment. I cannot think there is any real difference between us as to the meaning of the words "reasonable rent."

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I do not see why we should not proceed at once with the consideration of what is a reasonable standard. I cannot understand why we should postpone this matter to a later stage if we are all agreed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, after "rent," insert "and on reasonable conditions."—(Mr. Chance.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the words "whether "within or without their district or the said parish."— (Mr. Chaplin.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. LONG

I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment.

MR. CHAPLIN

Then I do not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

The Amendment of which I have given Notice requires a little alteration, owing to the Amendment which has been accepted by the Government. It should read—" Where not less than six registered electors of any parish, &c. "instead of" Where not less than ten inhabitants of full age of any parish, &c," and that at the end the words "and that it would be of public advantage to meet such demand as aforesaid" should be omitted. Amended as I suggest, the Amendment would read— Where not less than six registered electors of any parish in any rural or urban district containing according; to the last Census Returns, not less than five hundred inhabitants, or of any two or more contiguous parishes in any rural or urban district containing in the aggregate five hundred inhabitants, apply in writing, addressed to Such sanitary authority, to be provided with allotments and certify that they are unable to obtain them in such parish or parishes at reasonable rents, such application shall be sufficient proof of a demand for allotments. Now, Sir, we have provided that the rent shall be reasonable in the opinion of the Local Sanitary Authority; what we have to provide is what shall be evidence of demand for allotments. I hold that where six registered electors in a parish or parishes containing 500 inhabitants certify that they are unable to obtain allotments at reasonable rents, that fact is in itself evidence that there is a demand for allotments. Sanitary Authorities, and notably Board of Guardians, are bodies of men who will probably have altogether different ideas, as to what is evidence of the demand for allotments. One Board of Guardians may consider one set of circumstances sufficient evidence, and another Board of Guardians may take a precisely opposite view. Boards of Guardians—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order ! I have been considering this Amendment, and I think it is precluded by what the Committee has already done. The clause as passed through the Committee says — On a representation made by six electors the sanitary authority shall take such representation into consideration; if the sanitary authority are of opinion, after inquiry made after such a representation, that there is a demand, &c. It is clear that, if the representation itself constitutes evidence that there is a demand, it would be inappropriate to suggest they should make subsequent inquiries to arrive at the same conclusion. Such a suggestion is inconsistent with what has already been passed.

MR. SEALE HAYNE

The object of the clause is merely to determine what is sufficient evidence of a considerable demand for allotments, or rather a demand for allotments, the word "considerable" being taken out.

THE CHAIRMAN

To come to the exact point, the proposal of the Amendment is that this application on the part of a certain number of residents is to dispense with proof of the demand. What has already been assented to implies the further possibility of the existence of a demand, and therefore this suggestion is inconsistent with what has already been done.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I should like to point out that this only refers to one of several conditions which the Local Government Board may require to have complied with. Having framed the general proposition that it shall be lawful for the Local Authority to require evidence on certain points, this will go to show what shall be evidence on this point. If, instead of saying that such application shall be sufficient proof of a demand for allotments, it would be as well to alter the Amendment so as to declare that such application shall be deemed to be pimâ facie proof of a demand for allotments. Probably the insertion of those words would put the Amendment in order.

THE CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member for Ashburton (Mr. Seale-Hayne) persists in moving his Amendment I will not prevent him.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

With the permission of the Committee I will move my Amendment in the form suggested by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), though I am bound to say I think the new words take the backbone out of my Amendment. I need not add more to what I have said already, but I will only express a hope that in its altered form the Amendment will effect the object I have in view.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 18, after "same," insert— "Where not less than ten inhabitants of full age of any parish in any rural or urban district containing, according to the last Census Returns, not less than live hundred inhabitants, or of any two or more contiguous parishes in any rural or urban district containing in the aggregate five hundred inhabitants, apply in writing, addressed to such sanitary authority, to be provided with allotments and certify that they are unable to obtain them in such pariah or parishes at reasonable rents, such application may be taken as primâ facie proof of a demand for allotments, and that it would be of public advantage to meet such demand as aforesaid."— (Mr. Seale-Hayne.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD(Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

As the hon. Member who moved this Amendment has had so little to say in support of it, I presume he will not expect me to say very much in opposing it. All I can say is that having already entrusted the Local Authority with the duty of holding an inquiry, our view is that they should be the judges as to whether or not there is a primâ facie demand for allotments, and that it would be derogating from the power so given to them to accept the Amendment.

MR. CHANCE

I think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board does not recognize the fact that what has occurred on many estates already would in an informal manner constitute a primâ facie proof of a desire for allotments on the part of agricultural labourers. The only object of the framers of this Bill is to make the procedure as simple, rapid, and inexpensive as possible. Well, this Amendment will go a long way towards attaining that object. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the Local Authority will themselves be the best judges of what constitute or does not constitute a primâ facie case. I deny that absolutely. I say they will be bound by the ordinary rules of procedure, and bound by the ordinary rules of law; and that if they attempt to take hold of land, it will be possible for the person from whom they attempt to take it to get up a case, and say—" I did not refuse the land; land can be obtained at a reasonable price." What will be the position of these people under such circumstances? They will have to show that there is a demand for allotments, and that allotments are not to be obtained in the ordinary way. That will have to be shown by evidence, otherwise I presume a mandamus will lie in order to prevent them from taking land compulsorily. All those ordinary provisions inserted in so many Acts of Parliament for the purpose of facilitating procedure and saving expense, in a case of this kind, will apply. The Amendment merely goes to this, that when the other side says nothing, the Local Authority is to be satisfied with the signature of these six or 10 registered electors that a primâ facie case has been made. That is all it does. It does not preclude the land- lord from coming in and saying that such demand does not exist; it only throws the onus on him that such a demand does not exist. It is altogether for the simplification of the procedure, and to render it less expensive; and, therefore, I cannot, for the life of me, see why it should be resisted.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I think the information before the Committee should be sufficient to induce it to adopt the principle I raised on a previous Amendment, and to require that the onus of proof should be placed on the authorities, or those who refuse to allow land to be obtained for allotments. I think in that sense it would be desirable that these words should be accepted, and I sincerely hope they will be accepted by the Committee.

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

I venture to think that an Amendment such as this, altered to meet your ruling, Sir, in the point of Order, will not be of the least value from the point of view of the hon. Members behind me. But supposing it were carried as it originally stood on the Paper, and that it would give them all they desire, I would submit to them that this Amendment, and all Amendments having a similar purpose, are an entire mistake. What would be the effect of an Amendment of this kind? Why, it would be to put it in the power of six constituents of the Local Authority to force the hands of the Local Authority, and to cause the expenditure of the ratepayers' money. [Cries of "No, no !"] Yes, that would be the effect of it. The effect of a great number of Amendments which have been moved by hon. Members behind me, and certainly the effect of this one, would be to humiliate and degrade the Local Authority, and to weaken its influence and power. I quite understand the point of view from which this Amendment has been put before the Committee. Hon. Members think the Sanitary Authority is not a satisfactory authority for the administration of this Bill, and I quite agree with them. In its present form, I think the Local Authority is a most unsatisfactory authority to which to entrust the administration of a measure of this kind. When the proper time comes, I shall promote, to the utmost of my power, a comprehensive scheme for the reform of the existing Local Authority. I hope to see the Sanitary Authority made a thoroughly representative body, such as the Town Councils in our boroughs are; but I will not be a party to anything which will degrade the Local Authority, whatever it may be. I will do nothing to limit their functions and their influence and power. Keep those qualities, so that the Local Authority may be the supreme authority in each district; and if you find that it is not thoroughly representative, by all means promote amendments in the law whenever an opportunity arises in order to make it so. I do not think there are many hon. Members behind me who have had so much experience of Local Authorities and their work as I have had: and I do not think anyone has done more to promote the dignity and importance of local bodies. That being so, I think I am right in venturing to advise my hon. Friends that, while they should do all they could to make the Local Authority thoroughly representative and popular, they should do nothing to lessen its influence and degrade it in the eyes of its constituents, or to make its constituents independent of it in any sense. What happened the other day? We were discussing, I think it was, the Technical Instruction Bill. In connection with that Bill, there was a proposal that a plébiscite in a constituency should be taken before the Local Authority should put into force its powers under the Bill. My hon. Friends behind me were against that to a man, and I was against it, because I thought nothing would be more likely to degrade and lessen the Local Authority—and if you are going to refuse to give a majority of the ratepayers power to dictate to the Local Authority in a matter like technical education, surely you are not going to give six of the ratepayers the power of forcing the hands of the Local Authority under this Bill. If you did, you would reduce the Local Authority to such a pitch of degradation that I do not think you would find it possible to get respectable people to associate themselves with those bodies.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

I feel perfectly confident that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would not have made the speech he has just delivered if he had had any experience of Rural Authorities.

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I live in a county.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

It does not follow that because the right hon. Gentleman lives in a county he has any experience of Boards of Guardians.

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN

But I have.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

If the right hon. Gentleman finds no fault with the Local Authority to whom, the carrying out of this Act is to be entrusted he must have Rural Boards of Guardians in his district of an exceedingly exemplary character. However, Sir, I will take the sense of the House on this matter, and accept its decision simply on the principle that half a loaf is better than no broad.

MR. CHANCE

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has told us that this Amendment, if accepted, will degrade the Local Authority, and force the hands of the Local Authority to a very lamentable extent. May I point out that all that it will do is this? It will give to the Local Authority certain primâ facie evidence, and save them the expense of attempting to prove the general need for allotments by obtaining local evidence. It does not compel them to take any action whatsoever. But I would turn back on the Amendment. I do not know, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) was accepted—and I understand that that hon. Gentleman usually acts with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who is so anxious not to degrade the Local Authority, and not to force the hands of the Local Authority—the hon. Member proposed, and asked the Committee to accept, an Amendment by which 10 or six householders, I forget which, could absolutely compel the Local Authority to hold an inquiry. It seems to me that if the observations of the right hon. Gentleman were applicable to any Amendment it would have been to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division, who would degrade the Local Authority, and force their hands, by enabling six ratepayers of the district to compel them to hold an inquiry. The right hon. Gen- tleman might have complained of that Amendment, but, as nothing of the kind would be effected by this Amendment, I do not see what exception he can take to it. The present proposal simply would enable the Local Authority to get evidence by an easy and rapid means.

MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)

I am sure that everyone will admit that the experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. (Mr Joseph Chamberlain) in any matter of this kind is Very great indeed, and I am also sure that no one would pay more deference to it than I should myself; but I must say, if we had had another authority named in this Bill, as I have pointed out in regard to other Amendments, this proposal would not have been necessary; but, under existing circumstances, we feel that we are bound to take every opportunity we can in discussing this matter to force the Local Authorities as far as possible. Now this Amendment, even emasculated as I own it is to a very large extent by alterations which we have been obliged to make in it, no doubt prevents the necessity of taking evidence which the Local Authority would otherwise be bound to take; and I would ask why is the word of these 10 registered electors not to be taken? Why are they not to be believed? Why are we to trust to the Sanitary Authority—I mean the Boards of Guardians—an authority admitted, I believe, on all hands—even by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board—to be by no means a satisfactory authority? Well, we do wish to do that which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham accused us of desiring to do—we do wish to restrain the power of the Boards of Guardians. We do wish to tie their hands. We do wish to lessen their power for doing harm, for we think it would be very harmful if they were to refrain from putting the provisions of this Bill into force. The right hon. Gentleman said he would do everything in his power to get a thoroughly good representative, popular Local Authority in place of the Rural Sanitary Authority. I am quite sure he will do so. No one in this country has done more towards that end than he has; but what evidence have we that the present Government are going to bring in a Local Government Bill next year? What evidence is there that we are going to get from them a good Local Authority? I have studied, so far as I could, the Boundaries Commission Bill. So far as I could judge from that, and from what the right hon. Gentleman who introduced it said in his speech, it seems to me that we have very little prospect of getting a good popular representative authority in place of the Rural Sanitary Authority; and what I think the Government point to in the remarks they have made, and also what I think the Boundaries Commission Bill points to, is more to having a County-Authority than anything else. Now, they may depend upon this, although I do not suppose they will take my opinion on the matter, that they will find that only a popular authority properly elected will ever be able to settle the allotments question. The Allotment Authorities should be elected in very much smaller areas than, the Sanitary Authorities. This Amendment, to a small extent, I admit, but to some extent, protects the public by placing the power of initiative in the hands of those 10 registered electors. It obliges the Local Authority to accept, at all events, as primâ facie evidence, the assurance of these 10 registered electors. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment carries it to a Division, I shall vote with him.

MR. RITCHIE

I do not wish to touch upon a matter which is not germane to this Amendment, though allusion has been made to it on more than one occasion. The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken in supposing that the present Government imagine they will deal adequately with the question of local government, if they confine their attention to the reform of local county government or to the setting up of a County Authority. If the hon. Member saw the Bill now in print he would find that we propose not only to deal with County Authorities, but with all authorities within the county. With reference to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, I entirely agree with him that this Amendment would be a distinct slur upon the Local Authority. It would say to them that they must accept as bonâ fide evidence a certain thing is to my mind to show that they cannot be trusted.

MR. CHANCE

The Amendment does not say anything of the kind.

MR. RITCHIE

To my mind the Amendment is in effect a declaration that the Local Authorities cannot be trusted. It may be very true that the present Local Authority is not altogether a satisfactory authority. I am not prepared to say that it is; but it is the best we have, and the hon. Member must remember that whatever restrictions are imposed upon this body will apply equally to the Local Authority to be created in the future. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman, what he seems to have forgotten, that this Bill applies not only to Boards of Guardians, but also to Urban Authorities and Town Councils.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

I have been reading the Amendment very carefully, and I must say I cannot tell what is the object of it. First of all, it applies not only, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government has said, to Improvement Commissioners and to Local Boards, but also to Town Councils, and it says in effect that if 10 or six mea certify that they are unable to obtain allotments in a parish or parishes at reasonable rents, that is to be taken as a proof that there is a reasonable demand for allotments. What is to take place then? There is either to be an inquiry or there is not. I presume the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Seale-Hayne) does not mean to say that only the 10 men or the six men are to have the allotments, and no one else? [Mr. SEALE-HAYNE: No, no!] Then is there to be an inquiry? If the Amendment seeks to lay down a course by which the want of allotments in any district can be made known, that has been already provided for in the Bill. If there is no question as to there being a want of allotments in a certain district, and if the statement of these six or 10 men is to be taken as primâ facie evidence that there is such a want, I fail to see how the extent of the want can be ascertained without inquiry. Is there to be an inquiry? [Cries of "Yes! "] If that is the sole object of the Amendment, then it is amply provided for by an Amendment already passed, by which six inhabitants or persons may put the Sanitary Authority in motion to make such inquiry. Therefore, it appears to me that there is no object to be gained by adopting this Amendment.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

If the hon. Member had read the Amendment, he would find that all it provides for is that the Sanitary Authority should take such representation into consideration as primâ facie, evidence, and nothing more.

MR. NEWNES (Cambridge, E., Newmarket)

I think it is necessary we should be able to force the hands of the Local Authority. If the Bill is to be of any use whatever, those for whom it is intended to provide allotments ought to have them where they want them. There is a demand spoken of in another part of the Bill, and what we want is to make that demand a specific one. The demand spoken of is only a general demand. Well, that demand may not be recognized by the Local Authority, but by this Amendment it is made a specific demand by six or 10 inhabitants coming and declaring that there is a want of allotments. On such representation being made, the Local Authority will have to take notice of it, and to put in force this Bill.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

I am unable to agree with some of my hon. Friends around me with regard to this Amendment, as I believe it open to the objections stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). It is intended to force the hands of the Local Authorities—in other words, it is intended to take away from them their discretion, and to compel them to take a particular course against their better judgment. The same argument was used in connection with the Artizans' Dwellings Act. It was attempted to force the hands of the Local Authority under that measure; but the House very wisely refused to interfere with the discretion of the Local Authority. The House considered that on the whole it was well to trust the Local Authority. If you do not trust them, then reform them; but do not destroy local government by endeavouring to take discretion out of their hands. It is for this reason that I disagree with the whole course of proceeding in connection with Amendments of this kind. I object to them, though I am quite as strongly in favour of doing everything possible to give efficiency to this Act as any hon. Gentleman; but I will not do anything to improve the Bill which I think will have the effect of destroying in any way the authority of local governing bodies.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

I will not occupy more than one moment of the time of the Committee; but I wish just to say that if I thought the effect of this Amendment would be what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham declares I would not vote for the Amendment. But I do not think it will have the effect he says. If he will recollect this fact, that the object of the Bill is not to degrade Local Authorities, but to give increased authority to them, and that all we are trying to do is to put upon them as much restriction as will secure the object we are aiming at, I do not think that he will take so strong an objection to the proposal. The object in view in this Amendment is not to secure the degradation of the Local Authorities, but to secure allotments.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

I wish to say that the language used by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) more than once in the course of this debate was to the effect that because Boards of Guardians are trusted with the arrangements for the health of their districts, that, therefore, we ought to be willing to trust them in these matters. I maintain that Boards of Guardians are the most unsatisfactory Local Authority in the district, and I cannot have confidence in them for the administration of this Act. It is a now phase in the character of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), that he of all men in the world should be vindicating the character of Boards of Guardians, defending them, and wishing us not to degrade an authority which consists, to a large extend, of ex officio members. We find in that town in which I have the honour to dwell with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, that there is not a very strong appreciation of or belief in bodies so constituted. What we believe in in Birmingham are Boards elected wholly by the people, on the principle of the one man one vote. That is the principle we support and advocate as much as possible. If we had such a system of election under this Act we should be willing to repose the greatest confidence in the Local Authorities to whom these powers are to be entrusted.

MR. SHEEHY (Galway, S.)

This Amendment touches very closely on one fault in Ireland, and I presume we shall wish to have this Act applied to that country. I do not see why we should not have in Ireland the benefits of legislation which pisses this House, particularly of legislation of this character. You can give us plenty of coercion—[Cries of "Order ! "] I am assuming that we Irish Members may wish to have this Act applied to Ireland, and I am discussing this Amendment as if it will be so applied. If the measure is so applied the contention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) will not at all apply in Ireland, because there we have not the popular franchise for the election of our Local Authorities as you have in this country.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOF WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE) (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

I wish, to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking at all to the Amendment before the House. If he desires to extend the Bill to Ireland he an move a clause for that purpose at the proper time.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N)

On the point of Order, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order !

COLONEL NOLAN

On the point of Order——

THE CHAIRMAN

If I were going to silence the hon. Member, the hon. and gallant Member would perhaps have some reason to speak; but all I intend to say is, that although it may be inconvenient to raise the question as to the necessity of reforms of this kind in Ireland, the hon. Member is not out of Order in what he is saying on this clause.

COLONEL NOLAN

Hear, hear !

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order !

Ma. SHEEHY

The contention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would be, that if this Amendment is accepted it would be a slur on the Sanitary Authority who will have to administer the Act. That would be so if it were well known that the Sanitary Authority would take active stops to apply the Act and to carry out out its spirit; but if they should act selfishly and sluggishly the question would assume a different aspect.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 156: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 409.) [10.0 P.M.]

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

I move the Amendment which stands in my name, with the view of getting the Government to remove altogether or to modify the 2nd sub-section of this clause, which says— A Sanitary Authority shall not under this Act acquire land for allotments save at such price or rent that all expenses incurred by the Sanitary Authority in acquiring the land and otherwise in relation to the allotments may reasonably be expected to be recouped out of the rents obtained in respect thereof, and where it is not practicable to acquire land suitable for allotments at such price or rent as aforesaid, nothing in this Act shall require the Sanitary Authority to acquire land for allotments. I should propose to insert in place of that sub-section the following:— Nothing in this section shall make it obligatory on a Sanitary Authority to acquire land for allotments save at such a price or rent as may, in their opinion, having regard to all the circumstances of the district, be a reasonable price or rent. I think, if this sub-section is carried as it stands, it will form a very serious obstacle in the way of the working, at any rate, of the compulsory clauses of this Bill. Its terms are very peremptory. It prohibits the Sanitary Authority from acquiring land for allotments, if at such price or rent, that all expenses incurred by the Sanitary Authority—

MR. STAVELEY HILL

I rise to Order. I have an Amendment on the Paper before that of the hon. Member.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

And I also have an Amendment on the Paper before that of the hon. Member.

THE CHAIRMAN

Yes; the hon. Member's Amendment comes afterwards.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

I move to omit Sub-section 2. Hon. Members on the other side of the House may not think very highly of the Local Sanitary Authorities; and some hon. Member on this side may not have a very high opinion of them; but considering we intend to entrust them with the carrying out of this Bill, it is scarcely right on the part of the Government to depreciate them as they have done. My objection to Sub-section 2 is that it is altogether out of place. If the Sanitary Authorities do not see their way to recoup the expenses out of the rents obtained, they may not acquire the land, and where it is not practicable to acquire land at the necessary price or rent, nothing in the Act shall require the Sanitary Authority to secure land for allotments. I cannot see any reason why we should put upon the Local Authorities this restriction.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, leave out sub-section (2).—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section 2 stand part of the Clause."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

Sir, the whole effect of leaving out this subsection would be to expressly negative the instruction to the Local Authority that they are to have regard to the consideration whether allotments may reasonably be expected to recoup their cost out of the rents to be paid in respect of them. If there is one principle of more importance than another, it is that there should be nothing in the Bill which would seem to support the theory that it is the duty of the Local Authority to provide allotments out of the rates. In my opinion, that would be not only demoralizing to those who may have to become the occupants of allotments, but it would also greatly damage and impair the efficiency of the Bill. The only instruction given in this sub-section is that the authority is to exercise reasonable care, that in considering the question of acquiring land for these allotments they have a reasonable expectation that they will not have to fall back on the rates. I conceive that nothing is more likely to damage the system of allotments, and to make the whole system more unpopular, than that the Sanitary Authority should acquire the land at such a price as would entail a demand being made on the rates of the locality. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.

MR. HOBHOUSE

As I object to this sub-section on rather different grounds to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill), perhaps I may be allowed to explain my views to the Committee. I am sure we all agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Pre- sident of the Local Government Board, who has charge of the Bill, in wishing that no burden which is not inevitable should be imposed upon the ratepayers; but, at the same time, I am sure we must all agree, and certainly I myself should agree, that it is undesirable to put such sweeping provisions into the Bill as would tend in certain cases to make the compulsory clauses absolutely unworkable. I wish to point out to the Government the exceedingly sweeping language of the clause, and the effect it may have on the mind of any ordinary Sanitary Authority. Sanitary Authorities have to take into account, in framing their reasonable expectations, all expenses incurred "in acquiring land and otherwise." These expenses may include not only the actual purchase money but also what one may call the expenses incident to the possession of the land, such as improvement, management, bad debts, and such things which must be allowed for in many cases; also compensation to outgoing tenants, and all those expenses that every landowner has to pay. They will not only include these expenses—which may very fairly, I admit, be recouped out of the rent—but also in many cases—in all cases where compulsory powers are put into force—a large amount of what may be called preliminary expenses. There is a provision in this Bill at the beginning of Clause 6 which provides that rent should be fixed at an amount not less than such as may reasonably be expected to insure the Sanitary Authority from loss. I submit to the Government that that direction alone is sufficient to protect the ratepayer in the majority of cases. But in those cases in which the compulsory powers have to be put into force, there are a large mass of preliminary expenses which may reasonably be expected to be incurred by the Sanitary Authority, if opposition is offered to their putting these powers in force. Let me remind the Committee that, in the first place, the Sanitary Authority have to hold an inquiry themselves. They will, no doubt, have to employ a surveyor to arrive at a proper value of the land and the proposed site for the allotment. Then there is the petition to the County Authority or the Local Government Board as the case may be. There are the notices that are prescribed by the Land Clauses Acts incorporated by this Bill. Then there is the inquiry of the County Authority or the Local Government Board in cases of opposition on the part of the landowners, and the Sanitary Authority will have to put in an appearance either by their clerks or more likely by a lawyer, and they will have to produce evidence to prove their case. Then there is the Provisional Order which may be opposed, and which has been opposed in some instances in this House, and which will, if opposed, have to go to a Select Committee, where the Sanitary Authority, who is the promoter of the Provisional Order under this Bill, will have to appear by counsel, and will, consequently, have to incur very heavy costs. And when the Provisional Order is obtained there are all the expenses of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act for fixing the value of the land in cases of dispute. There will be costs to be incurred in some cases of arbitration or inquiry before a jury, which have partly or wholly to be borne by the promoters of the Provisional Order; and, lastly, there are the costs of conveyances for vesting the land and the costs of verifying titles, and ascertaining to whom the purchase money is to be paid. Now, I submit that, in many cases where real opposition is offered—in the case of a Sanitary Authority taking the land compulsorily— all these costs, or many of them, will have to be or may be, reasonably expected to be incurred by such authority, and I submit that such authority will, in case of bitter opposition threatened by churlish landowners, under this clause, have a perfectly good excuse, and even a justification, for not putting the compulsory powers in force at all. And therefore I very much fear that if this sub-section stands, as it at present does, on the very face of the Bill, the Sanitary Authority will have very good ground for saying that it is forbidden by the Bill itself from resorting to compulsion, because of the preliminary expenses that it will have, or may have to bear, and which will, or may, be so great that it will be perfectly impossible to recoup them out of the rents. What I wish to urge on the Government is this —that either they should withdraw this sub-section, and substitute some such words as I have proposed on the Paper—words simply showing that it is not obligatory on the Sanitary Authority to acquire land by voluntary agreement except at a rea- sonable price, or that they will introduce words into the clause, to show that the expenses mentioned here do not include—what as they stand at present, they certainly would includo—all expenses, whether preliminary or otherwise, attaching to the acquisition of land, whether by agreement or by compulsion.

MR. ATNSLIE (Lancashire, N. Lonsdale)

If I had the drawing of this clause, I could not have put better into words what I feel upon this subject. The Committee may not be aware that there are sections of this country where some ratepayers pay the bulk of the rates. In cases like this the bulk of the rates are paid by one or two persons. I want to know why the Sanitary Authority in such cases as those should have the power of deciding to spend my money, which is the ratepayers' money, in acquiring land, the cost of which, there will not be a reasonable prospect of recouping from the rents? I am not prepared to say that every word and every line of this clause is exactly what I myself should have put in. But in regard to that, I shall not be following the very good example of the Leaders of my Party if I objected to it. But I do maintain that there is a principle involved in this section which the Committee ought to study; and I trust in whatever way the wishes of this Committee may be met by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, he will, at any rate, not lose sight of the fact that there is a section of the community who may be entirely overridden by the Local Authority elected on the principle which hon. Members opposite have referred to to-day, that of "one man, one vote," whereby the one man and they one vote may entirely override property belonging to his neighbours. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Pardon me, I have not misstated the fact, whatever our differences may be as to the legality of it—I am not overstating the fact that under these circumstances the "one man, one vote" might under this section probably acquire power to deal with my property in a way in which I should not like it to be dealt with. I therefore hope that in any modifications of this clause which the right hon. Gentleman may assent to, that point, at any rate, will not be lost sight of.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

The very strong arguments which have been used against this sub-section by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite and my hon. Friend behind me seem to me to be conclusive arguments, not so much against the sub-section, as against the very expensive procedure which the Government have introduced into other parts of the Bill. If any change should be introduced into this sub-section, it should rather be, in my opinion, to limit the price which the Sanitary Authority should be permitted to pay for land to something like the agricultural value. But I really think that the arguments which have been adduced are much more forcible in the direction of altering the procedure, which alteration I hope, from the words of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, the Government intend to adopt in the 3rd clause which follows.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

On the previous section both the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) pointed out that if we tied the hands of the Sanitary Authority we should be degrading and debasing it, and that while we had a Local Sanitary Authority we ought to support its authority. Now, I think those words would bear repetition in this sub-section. I think in this sub-section we are laying it down to the Sanitary Authority that they should behave like ordinary business people, and we are putting into an Act of Parliament that they are not to deal with this Act unless they behave in a business-like manner and like reasonable people. I certainly think it is degrading and debasing the Sanitary Authority to lay down such regulations for them. Of course, if they are fit to manage the affairs of the ratepayers they will act in a business-like manner, and will not squander the money of those they represent in buying up allotments which will not pay. That is not the only objection I have to urge to the sub-section. Notwithstanding the compliment paid to the drafting of the subsection on the opposite side of the House, I must say I find great fault with it practically. What will this sub-section do? Why, it will give ground for opposition, in the first place, on the Board itself. An opposition party will get up and will at once oppose the proposals which may be made—an opposition inside the Sanitary Board—and that opposition will have its statement of accounts to prove that the allotments it is proposed to acquire will not pay. I do not object to that; but I do object to putting something in the Act which will make the majority go to law with the minority. By retaining this unnecessary sub-section you are going to create an enormous amount of litigation. The sub-section provides that the Sanitary Authority shall be recouped the expenses of putting the Act in operation; but it is totally impossible that it can be proved that 40 or 50 pieces of land will pay. All they can do is to strike an average and see whether this land will pay generally. I mention this to show that immediately application is made for allotments, all these difficulties will be started, and therefore I say you should make the procedure as simple as you can and give the authorities as little ground as possible for raising objections.

MR. COBB

I have always said one thing to the labourers and artizans in my district—namely, that I propose to do what I can to get them the right of acquiring a small piece of land at a fair rent. But I have always been careful to tell them that they should not look at this from a charitable point of view; nor do they want it in that sense. I quite agree with what has been said as to the enormous expense which will be incurred under this Bill, if it remains in the shape in which it has been introduced by the Government. I will not, however, dwell upon that subject now, because it will come forward on a later portion of the Bill, and will then be more fully discussed. If you are to incur a heavy expense in this matter which is to be spread over the rent, you will make that rent so high that the labourer cannot afford to pay it. If these expenses are not to be included in the rent, I ask by whom they are to be paid? Are we going to transform the electorate into a body dependent on charity who are to have the rent of their land paid for them out of the rates? I should be ashamed to go to my constituents, and tell them that I have placed them in such a position as that. I have always thought that we were trying to raise the electorate, and endeavouring to make them more independent and therefore better satisfied with their condition.

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

I think that the object which the Government has in view is one which everyone will approve. It is desirable for many reasons that the Bill should not throw any cost upon the rates for the sake of the ratepayer to begin with, and also for the sake of the labourers themselves; because if the first experiments made under the Bill should prove to be expensive, we may be quite sure that the principle will not have any extensive application. Therefore, I agree with the Government in the way they have proceeded in this subsection. But I cannot help thinking that the 6th clause, although it does not cover the whole case, does really go as far as the Government should go in cases of this kind. It makes it obligatory on the Local Authority to fix the rents of allotments at such an amount "as may reasonably be expected to insure the Sanitary Authority against loss." I wish to point out that as the subsection now stands it would be almost impossible for any Local Authority, if they were guided by technical considerations, by compulsion to acquire land, because you cannot declare before hand at what price you will obtain land, and therefore you cannot assure yourself that the land will be acquired at a price which will reasonably justify the Local Authority in their expectation of being recouped. That is one objection, but a much more serious objection is that you are dealing with an authority that at all events in its present position is likely to be very ready to take advantage of excuses for not doing their duty under this Bill. Therefore, I say you ought not to multiply these excuses unnecessarily, and I think if you were to leave this sub-section in the Bill it would be regarded as a reason for not putting the Act in force. I think if the right hon. Gentleman has regard to Clause 6 he may find it possible to dispense with this sub-section.

MR. RITCHIE

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is no novel idea that Local Authorities should be restricted and controlled in their operations, in case those operations should involve obligations upon the rates; so that this clause is by no means to be regarded as casting discredit upon the Local Authorities. We have to exercise a considerable amount of control over the Local Authorities in dealing with the rates, and therefore I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will sympathize with us in our desire to provide that the Local Authorities should not take any steps which will involve an obligation on the rates. The right hon. Gentleman says that Clause 6 is sufficient for our purpose without this sub-section. I must say that I do not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that. Clause 6 simply provides for the rent when the Local Authority has got possession of the land, but the clause we are now discussing is one which controls to some extent the acquisition of land, and it lays the necessity upon the Local Authorities as far as they reasonably can, to take proper precautions before acquiring land that the cost shall be recouped out of the rents as they receive them. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause C he will see that Sub-section 4 contemplates that the Local Authority may acquire land which they may not be able to let at rents which will recoup them. The words are— If at any time any allotment cannot be let in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the regulations, the same may be let to any person whatever at the best annual rent that can be obtained for the same. My right hon. Friend will understand that the sub-section contemplates that under certain circumstances it is possible that some deficiency may have to be met out of the rates, so that Clause 6 does not provide safeguards that no portion of the cost will be thrown upon the rates, but on the contrary, that some portion of it maybe thrown upon them. We have endeavoured to provide that Subsection 4 will not be brought into operation if it can be avoided. On further consideration, I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that this clause does not require that the authorities should have anything more than a reasonable ground to believe that the cost will be recouped to them. Looking at the fact that by the clause we are discussing, we are taking every precaution we can that the carrying out of the Bill should not be a burden on the rates, I am afraid I cannot part with the sub section.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

If this sub-section laid down clearly the principles on which the authorities should proceed, I think there would be no objection to it; but when you put a clause of this kind into an Act of Parliament you must remember that you subject the authority to the external action of other people. Now, assuming' that a Local Authority is engaged in making a purchase of land under this sub-section anybody who objects to the proceeding— it might be the person from whom the land was taken, or some cantankerous ratepayer—may take action against the authority and restrain them in their proceeding. I am afraid that would be a serious matter, and I think it is worth the while of the Government to consider whether they ought not to enclose their principle in a form which would not be open to that objection. I shall be glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General say how this can he provided against.

MR. RITCHIE

I wish to say on the part of the Government that although we cannot part with this sub-section we shall be glad to consider between this and Report, whether any modification can be made in the clause that will carry out the wishes of the Government, and at the same time meet the objections raised to the sub-section.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

I think we must have something more than that. I do not think that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is quite sufficient.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

It appears to me that the way in which this clause would operate is not only by allowing a cantankerous person to prevent the authority obtaining such land as may be necessary; it seems to me that you are putting in the hands of the landowner a weapon which will enable him to place an exorbitant price on the land, if he wants to prevent the Act being put in force. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to consider how he can modify this clause, I earnestly hope that he will consider it with a view to this—namely, that you must not put into the hands of any single landowner a weapon which he may use to the disadvantage of a whole neighbourhood. I should not be disposed to oppose the clause if the right bon. Gentleman can prevent that, but we must have a clear understanding upon the point.

MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.)

Hon. Members will notice that under this Bill, all charges with respect to allotments are charges on the parish in the same way as the charges in the Sanitary Act are charges on the parish. Under the Sanitary Act it is competent to the Sanitary Authorities to appoint Parochial Committees to carry out the work Under the present Bill the fame power exists. In any question affecting the parish and the money to be raised in the parish, the Sanitary Authority will appoint a Parochial Committee, and whatever is done in the way of expense will be considered very carefully by those Committees, and their proceedings will have to be submitted for approval to the Sanitary Authority.

MR. BEADEL (Essex, Chelmsford)

I wish to point out that allotments can only be acquired voluntarily or compulsorily. There can be no question that if agriculture is to remain in the position which it occupies at the present moment the compulsory powers of the Bill will never have to be put in force. Anyone holding land will only be too charmed under the circumstances to allow these allotments to be used, so that the holders of them may have the experience gained by the landowners, that at present the land is comparatively worthless for them to occupy. That is a fact, so far as the holding of land is concerned at the present time. Those hon. Members, therefore, who think there will be any great difficulty in the acquirement of allotments will perhaps allow the voluntary system to operate; but inasmuch as the Bill must contain something beyond that, it is necessary to take compulsory powers; and I think the Government have done all they possibly can in selecting the authority which shall be able to put those powers in operation. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to fear that the acquisition of land by compulsory purchase would involve a large expense, and, to a great extent, I agree in that opinion. I do not see how it is possible to put into force compulsory powers unless considerable expense is incurred. Whether those who support the demand for allotments are prepared to say that the difference between the fair value of property and the cost of acquiring that property against the will of the owner shall fall upon the rates, is a question to be determined hereafter, but that there will be expense is undoubted. For my part, I shall be glad to see allotments general throughout the country, although hon. Members will perhaps allow me to say, from experience gained privately and professionally, that in the rural districts allotments are not appreciated to the extent imagined.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must confine his observations to the special Amendment before the Committee. The hon. Member is delivering a speech which would have been appropriate to the second reading of the Bill.

MR. BEADEL

I, of course, bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. My observations were only made for the purpose of cooling down hon. Members opposite, and with the endeavour to show that the Government, in my judgment, have done everything they possibly can to enable a Bill to be passed which shall operate for the benefit of a portion of the community in whom we all feel a great interest.

MR. COBB

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board whether the Amendment, which he proposes to bring up on Report, would deal with the very vital point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt)? If the ratepayer or other person is to have the right of taking legal proceedings to prevent the Sanitary Authority from purchasing land under this clause, I certainly think we shall do better to take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and adhere to Clause 6.

MR. RITCHIE

I wish it to be understood that what I said was that the Government would between now and Report consider the objection which had been raised to the sub-section, and see whether they could, consistently with the principle of the Bill, in any way meet the wishes of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

Before this question is put, I should like to allude to one point which has not been mentioned by any hon. Member in the course of the discussion. It appears that the expenses in connection with these allotments are to include the purchase money. If the Sanitary Authority is to let the land so that the purchase money may be repayable in 13 or 15 years with interest by instalments, it follows that the labourer at the end of that time has purchased the ground out of the rent, and that he thereby makes a permanent endowment to the parish for the benefit of the general body of ratepayers. If that is the intention of the Government, it ought to be clearly stated. My own idea was that the Sanitary Authority was to purchase the land and let it at its agricultural value, not that the labourer was to endow the parish in the manner I have described.

Question put,

The Committee divided:—Ayes 140; Noes 101: Majority 39. — (Div. List, No. 410.) [10.50 P.M.]

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, after the word "expenses," insert "except such expenses as are incurred in making roads used by the public."— (Mr. Halley Stewart.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I beg to move the insertion after the word "roads" in the Amendment of the words "to be." As the Amendment stands without these words it will apply merely to existing roads.

THE CHAIRMAN

I will put the Amendment in that form.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, after "expenses," insert "except such expenses as are incurred in making roads to be used by the public."

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I should like to add one or two words to the clause, in order to carry out the suggestion conveyed in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes) just before the recent Division. The hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out what is an exceedingly important point to recollect—namely, that if the rent is to include the recouping of the capital outlay, you will impose on the labourer the duty of purchasing the fee-simple of the land, and making a present of it to the district. I think that the words "capital outlay," or some other words to the same effect, should be inserted here. [Cries of "No, no!"] If the Government are not disposed to agree to such an Amendment in this clause, it may be arranged hereafter.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

I desire to move the omission of the words "and where it is not practicable to acquire land suitable for allotments at such price or rent as afore said, nothing in this Act shall require the Sanitary Authority to acquire land for allotments." In the first sub-section of this clause it is said that the Sanitary Authority shall purchase or hire land for allotments. These words say the Sanitary Authority shall not have power——

MR. RITCHIE

I accept the Amendment, which really only emphazises the first portion of the sub-section.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, to leave out from "and where" to end of the clause.—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (acquisition of land for purposes of this Act).

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

I beg to move the omission of the words "by agreement," in line 27, and in moving this Amendment I must also refer to the next Amendment I have on the paper, which is to leave out the whole of the cumbrous process which is provided in this Bill for the purpose of acquiring land by compulsion. Sufficient has been said on both sides of the Committee with regard to the impracticability of that process. Of course, to apply in the first place to the Sanitary Authority, and the Sanitary Authority to apply to the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board to apply to Parliament, and then after you have got Parliamentary powers to put in force the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, is a most ingenious way of not doing the thing.

MR. RITCHIE

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt him. This portion of Clause 3 applies to purchase by agreement, and not by compulsion — purchase by agreement from the persons who are under certain legal disabilities to sell.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

If I am in Order, I should like to explain that the effect of my Amendment would be to enable the Sanitary Authority, without applying to Parliament, or without applying to the Local Government Board, to put in force the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.

MR. RITCHIE

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

Then I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

; I do not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board says in regard to this matter. The clause is pretty clear in itself. It is that where land is to be taken by agreement, then the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, except the compulsory clauses, come into force.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name. It is to leave out all the words from the word "Act," in line 3, page 2, to the end of Sub-section 5, to get rid at once of the cumbrous process of obtaining possession of land. Now, I know that some people may think that it is an invasion of the rights of property to take possession of land compulsorily, without going through the process of a Provisional Order. But surely if land is to be taken compulsorily, the simpler the process is the better it is for the landlord on the one side, and for those by whom the land is to be purchased on the other side. Now, it so happens that we do take land compulsorily in some instances, without going through the formality of applying for a Provisional Order. Take the case of the road surveyor, who, under the Highway Act of William IV., takes possession of laud, and opens quarries, and pays nothing for it, except the market price of the stone. That is done without any application for a Provisional Order, but simply by an application to two Justices. I cannot see why a Rural and Urban Sanitary Authority should not be entrusted with the duty of putting into force the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and obtaining land by compulsion for allotments.

THE CHAIRMAN

the hon. Member proposes to omit Sub-sections 2, 3, 4, and 5?

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

Yes.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, to omit Sub-sections 2, 3, 4, and 5.—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)

Question proposed, "That the words if a sanitary authority are' stand part of the Clause."

MR. RITCHIE

So far as I understand it, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seale-Hayne) raises the whole question of the machinery under which, what are called, compulsory powers are to be obtained by Local Authorities in cases where land cannot be acquired for the purposes of this Bill by voluntary agreement. The hon. Gentleman says that the provisions in this Bill are provisions which are not rendered necessary with reference to the taking of land for certain purposes, and, as an illustration, he said that a road surveyor could obtain powers to get material out of land by simply applying to two Justices. That is so, no doubt; but the circumstances in cases of this kind are peculiar. The land is not to be taken for any purpose, is not to be put to any use, except the taking out of it a material for the purpose of road making. But, so far as I know, there is no power giving under any Act of Parliament by which any Public Body, any Body however public their requirements may be, can obtain land against the will of the possessor of that land without coming to Parliament by means of a Private Bill or a Provisional Order.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

I mentioned the case of the road surveyor.

MR. RITCHIE

I have said that it is an exceptional case, meant for exceptional circumstances, and cannot apply to the taking of land for such purposes as those contemplated by this Bill. Now, is there any public reason why a different process should be set up in this Bill for the purpose of taking land against the will of the owners to provide allotments? Is there any reason why land for this purpose should be taken in any other way than land taken for any public purpose under the Public Health Act?

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

Yes.

MR. RITCHIE

No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will inform us what are the circumstances under which he thinks that land ought to be taken in a different way, and what are the reasons why it should be taken. Why, even in the case of an area in the Metropolis, which is not a sanitary area, where a landlord may be fairly assumed to have neglected the duty which devolves upon him of making proper provision for the health of his tenants, Parliament has not allowed land to be taken by a Public Authority, without coming for the sanction of Parliament for that purpose. I know of no purposes whatever myself, amongst the many purposes for which land is to be acquired by Local Authorities throughout the country, for which it can be taken by Local Authorities without coming to Parliament by means of a Provisional Order. A great deal has been said about the matter of procedure under the Public Health Act, and it has been stated by more than one speaker that it is a cumbrous and unwieldy mode of procedure. Now, Sir, let us consider for a moment what is the method by which Sanitary Authorities have to obtain land under the Public Health Act. They have to give proper notices to those from whom they desire to take land; and I imagine that nobody, however extreme their views may be upon this subject, desire to take land from an owner without giving him proper notice that they desire to take his land. Very well. Then an application is to be made to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order. What do the Local Government Board do? They send down a gentleman to hold an inquiry, and surely it is admitted on all hands that it is desirable that an inquiry should be held, so that all the parties who were interested—not only the owners, not only those have an actual locus standi, but all those who are interested in the community at large— should have an opportunity of laying before the Inspector of the Local Government Board the reasons they may desire to advance why the land should not be taken as proposed by the authorities. After the Inspector of the Local Government Board has held an inquiry, he makes his report to the Local Government Board, and, according to the result of that inquiry, the Local Government Board either withhold or grant a Provisional Order. Well, now the point which is more particularly objected to, so far as I can gather, looking through the Amendments upon the Paper, is the proceeding subsequent to the granting of the Provisional Order. I understand that most of those who object to coming to Parliament for a Confirming Bill, would not object to coming to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order. So far as we have gone, I take it that the mode of proceeding is one that is not greatly objected to even by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Their main contention is that, on the issuing of the Provisional Order by the Local Government Board, all the negotiations, so far as the taking of land is concerned, should come to an end—that the process should come to an end.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but it is the cost of obtaining the Provisional Order which I should like him to deal with.

MR. RITCHIE

So far as the obtaining of the Provisional Order is concerned, the cost is almost nil. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I am speaking about the Provisional Order. The cost is almost nil, and it is almost entirely confined to the cost of the advertisements; and, so far as I understand, the hon. Gentleman would not go to the length of saying that full and due public notice ought not to be given by the Local Authority who desires to acquire land by that process. So far as the cost of obtaining a Provisional Order is concerned, there is no cost other than that which the hon. Gentleman would, I am sure, be willing to incur. But the hon. Gentleman says there is the cost of coming to Parliament, which is so great.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

The inquiry.

MR. RITCHIE

The cost of the inquiry. No charge is made for the services of the Inspector, although I think there ought to be. No charge is made at present for the services of the Inspector holding the inquiry, and no charge will be made under this Bill as the law stands at present. Then there comes the confirmation by Parliament. Upon this point I maintain it is an entirely novel principle if you take away land from individuals who are unwilling to part with it without Parliamentary powers. The mode of obtaining the consent of Parliament by Provisional Order is the most speedy and least costly of all modes. The Local Government Board include a Provisional Order in a Confirming Bill which they present to Parliament, and if that is not opposed, no expense whatever is incurred by the locality. What is the case if the Bill is opposed? I have already stated more than once in this House, as showing the non-expensive character of this mode of proceeding, that of 110 Confirming Bills which were presented by the Local Government Board to Parliament during the last five years, 108 were confirmed without any opposition whatever—only upon two occasions during the last five years have Confirming Bills including Provisional Orders for the acquiring of land been opposed. Why is this? It is because the inquiry of the Local Governvernment Board by means of their Inspector really dissipates all the opposition which, if there were no inquiry, would expend itself before a Committee of the House of Commons. Both the landlord and the Public Authority who desire to acquire land are satisfied with the opportunity they have of presenting to an independent tribunal the whole of their reasons for or against the powers which the Local Authority desire to obtain, and I have no doubt whatever such would be the case in this particular instance. We must not exclude from view the possibility that in one or two exceptional cases there may be expenses incurred; but I think I am right in saying that experience shows that no expenses whatever will be incurred in the obtaining of compulsory powers. It may be said that the cost of the machinery for settling the compensation is considerable, and that the compensation which is usually paid under these circumstances is also excessive. Well, no doubt the machinery of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act is not so simple a machinery as we would desire for the purposes of this Bill. It is a machinery which is a valuable and effectual machinery for the great mass of cases which have to be dealt with under the Act; but I acknowledge I should be very glad if we could find some simpler method and some less expensive plan of assessing the compensation under this Bill, for it is evident that the machinery, which may be very good and effective for the large purposes for which it was passed, may be too large and cumbrous and costly for the acquisition of land under such circumstances as are contemplated by this Bill. We have, however, contented ourselves, as I think we are bound to do, with adopting the machiney which was to hand, and which, so far as I know, is the only machinery at present in existence. But, if there could be some method by which it should be obligatory upon the landowner or Local Authority to refer to an arbitrator the question of what shall be the price for a particular piece of land, I am bound to say that very probably that would be less costly and more effectual machinery. I am prepared to undertake to the House that we will consider between now and the further stage of this Bill whether we can suggest to the Committee, or to the House, any more economical machinery by which the compensation can be assessed. I think, that perhaps in a case where the Local Authorities and the landowner cannot agree upon an umpire, the Local Government Board might be empowered to appoint a valuer and also to fix the remuneration. Well, now, some hon. Gentlemen have proposed the County Court Judge as being a better Tribunal than the one which is set up under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act; but I doubt very much whether that machinery would be better or would be any cheaper than the machinery provided under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, because the County Court Judge cannot be supposed, by virtue of his office, to have an accurate knowledge of the value of the land throughout the district, and therefore it should be in the power of either of the two parties to the transaction to insist upon an assessor being brought in to assist the County Court Judge in the fixing of the value. There is nothing, so far as I can see, which would prevent solicitors or counsel being appointed on either side to lay their cases before the County Court Judge, and if this machinery were to be put into operation, I do not for the life of me see how it can be expected to be any cheaper than the machinery which is set up by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. With reference to the question of compensation, I know it has been said, that in many cases under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, an arbitrator and jury have given compensation considerably over what is the ordinary market value of the property which has been taken. But I am told, on the other Land, that that is by no means always the case, and that, in very many cases, the amount which has been fixed under that Act has been a fair and proper and legitimate sum. I can quite understand, however, that in many of the cases which come for settlement under that Act, there may be a very large number of complications in connection with the purchase of the land which must inevitably run up the costs. The question of building or of trade claims, and many other matters of that kind, come in and undoubtedly give great scope for the fixing of an amount very much above the actual value. But that cannot arise in cases of this kind. Nothing can possibly be simpler than the valuation of a piece of agricultural land—nothing can be simpler than the assessing the compensation in a case where there are few, if any, interests other than the value of the land which is to be sold. I cannot think there is any reason why a landowner whose land is to be taken from him under this Bill should be treated in a different way from any other person whose land may be required for any other purpose. Therefore, I cannot lead the Committee to hope that we shall depart from the machinery by which the land can be obtained—namely, a Provisional Order made by Parliament—but we will consider whether some more easy and expeditious and economical mode cannot be suggested. I want the Committee to understand that this question of the mode in which the land should be acquired we regard as a vital portion of the scheme; and we cannot consent to be responsible for any measure which will enable any Sanitary Authority to take land away from a man unwilling to part with it without coming to Parliament for powers, which should be given in all circumstances that can be conceived at the present time. The exception the hon. Member has mentioned has proved nothing whatever, and if that be the only illustration the hon. Gentleman can give, that conclusively proves the justice of my view.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

In the Labourers (Ireland) Act of 1883 we had all the cumbrous procedure of the Provisional Order, which had to be confirmed by Parliament. We had another Labourers Act in 1885, in which Act Parliament deliberately departed from that system, and provided that a Provisional Order in which land was taken for the labourers in Ireland—a precisely parallel case to that of the present Bill —should confirm itself, unless within a limited period—I think of two months — a petition was presented against it. If no petition was presented against it, however, within two months, still it had to come before Parliament, because in such cases it went before the Privy Council, who had power to hear the matter, and the Provisional Order had the same effect as if it had been confirmed by Parliament. In the case of this Bill, several years after that procedure had started working, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board comes down here and says he knows of no analogous case where land can be taken compulsorily without Act of Parliament. He goes back from the procedure of 1885 to that of 1883, which has been abandoned clearly and completely by Parliament. I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his position. His Party has been getting educated, no doubt; but he does not seem to have made much advance in the matter. He has gone back in the case of England on that which Parliament condemned, so far as Ireland was concerned, in 1885.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

When the matter of taking land has once come before the Court appointed by the Land Clauses Act, there is no procedure of which you could complain. There is nothing of which I complain in any shape or way if land is to be taken, and the value has to be ascertained. It can be ascertained either by a jury, or by an arbitrator; and I cannot conceive any process that is better adapted for this purpose than that which has been found to work so well in the Act of 1845. But I have to complain of the bringing into operation of the 176th section of the Public Health Act of 1875, because that is a clause which enacts a system, as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said with regard to the Irish Labourers Act, which is utterly unsuited to the matter dealt with in this Bill. Where we are going to take land for such a public purpose as the sewage of a town, or for a railway, or any other public requirement of that nature, it is quite right that all notices should be given in a complicated manner, dealing, in all probability, with several properties, and dealing with questions as to whether the matter will be of real public benefit or not. It is quite right that notices should be given, such as those required by the Public Health Act. But for what earthly purpose, when it is known that the matter in hand is not whether or not the Sanitary Board is right in having said there is a requirement for allotments, and that these allotment cannot be entertained— why on earth should we go through a process of having all these advertisements and arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman says would be necessary in connection with such an inquiry? I was interested personally in a small matter relating to the acquisition of land, where the costs came to £600. The matter was one which really did not involve much more than would be involved under this Bill as affecting an allotment of land. If you are to be put to a cost of £300 in order to procure allotment land of five acres, the result will be to smash up the whole thing. It is to that I refer. It is to the expense under the provisions of the Public Health Act that one objects to, and not to the expense under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. I do most earnestly entreat the right hon. Gentleman, if he means to make this Bill a success, to alter that part of the clause. If it remains as it is, we shall simply go to our constituencies as having put upon them some fraud or sham measure, which will not do what we profess it shall do.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I certainly think that all necessary notice should be given in cases of compulsory purchase. We do not desire to spring a mine upon anyone, and the giving of a notice does not constitute an expense. I certainly was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite talk of the Lands Clauses Act as entailing little or no expense. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we went through a painful experience in Birmingham under that Act, when we went to an expense of about £1,500,000 for the purchase of land. Certainly, had we known what the operation of the Lands Clauses Act was going to be, that enterprise or undertaking would never have been entered into. I cannot, therefore, adopt the contention that is set forth. I think that the only thing hon. Members opposite want to secure is that a fair price should be given for the land. Well, I incline to think that the offer which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has given, though a new one, is a very effective one and a cheap one. If instead of going to this expense when the seller and buyer cannot agree on the price, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Local Government Board will send down a man to arrange the matter without any jury at all, and I take it that the expense by this arrangement would be very little and the rent would be fixed so that the parties would know what had to be paid.

MR. RITCHIE

What I suggested was this, that if the buyer and seller were mutually to agree upon some person to fix the price, then the Local Government Board, of coarse, need not step in, but if they could not agree then I think they should have to apply to the Local Government Board, who would appoint a man to say what the price should be, and the Local Government Board should fix that person's remuneration.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

That is better than I conceived it to be. The buyer and the seller would each fix his price, and the Local Government man would come in as a sort of umpire. I am quite aware that if the County Court Judge has to appoint assessors to assist him, and to argue the question, the expenses will run up until they become almost as heavy as they would be under the Lands Clauses Act, though anyone who knows the working of that Act must be aware that it is most mysterious how the costs under that Act run up to the extent to which they do. Even supposing that the Amendments with regard to County Court Judges are accepted, I can see that the method of procedure would not be so free from expense to the Sanitary Authority and to all concerned as the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. The proposal is a new one, but it is well worthy of the consideration of hon. Members on this side of the House. I feel sure that up to now, of all the propositions which have been made, this is the cheapest and the one likely to involve the least expense to all parties.

MR. H. GARDNER (Essex, Saffron Walden)

I do not wish to occupy the time of the Committee unduly, because I see that there are a great many Amendments on the Paper. Though I take great interest in this Bill. I have purposely abstained from speaking on many Amendments in which I take great interest, because I was anxious to see progress made. I should like to say, however, on this occasion, why I support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite. It has been fully admitted by the Committee that the machinery of this Bill is of a very cumbrous nature. The fact is, that hon. Gentlemen opposite have put the cart before the horse, and have endeavoured to bring in an Allotments Bill before they have brought in a County Government Bill. That is generally admitted by the House, and I do not think the reason for it is far to seek—in fact, it has been acknowledged in some of the Tory papers. There is one point that the right hon. Gentleman has not fairly put before the House. He has dwelt on the question as to the expense which this compulsory machinery would incur. I will not detain the Committee by following that argument, because I think it has been fully discussed by other speakers before me; but the right hon. Gentleman, though he has met the question of the expense of money, has not met the question of the expenditure of time, and I think it must be evident to everyone that under the very cumbrous machinery of this Bill, the time that will elapse, and the labour that will be involved, in arranging these allotments will be enormous. It will take a labourer who wants an allotment probably two years before he can enter upon it for occupation, if he has an unreasonable landlord to deal with. It is for this reason that I shall vote for the hon. Member behind me if he goes to a Division.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I think our discussion is now taking a practical shape. At first it took the form of the negation of the procedure for carrying out the purposes of this Bill which the Government had placed on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman said he would prefer not to bring in new principles of procedure, but to use the machinery at hand and in existence. I wish to draw his attention to an Amendment which I have on the Paper, and which I think will meet many of the objects he has in view. I certainly agree with him that it would be a very strong measure to take lands from anyone without having recourse to Parliament, and the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper, but which is printed in a form in which I am not going to move it, will, I think, exactly express, or very nearly express, the intention the Government has declared through the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. My Amendment, as printed on the Paper, is as follows:— Clause 3, page 2, line 9, leave out all after "may" and insert "subject to the provisions of this Act, purchase compulsorily any lands suitable for the purposes of this Act, whether within or without their district, and such authority shall have all the powers and be subject to all the conditions prescribed for local authorities by 'The Public Health Act, 1875.' sections one hundred and seventy-six, two hundred and ninety-six and two hundred and ninety-seven, and the said section shall for all purposes be incorporated with this Act. The price of all lands purchased under this Act compulsorily shall be decided by the county court judge of the district within which the lands, or the greater part thereof in value, are situate, on the application of the Sanitary Authority, and shall be of such a sum as shall, in the opinion of the county court judge, be the fair market value of such lands, without any addition being made for compulsory purchase. I propose in the 10th line to leave out — By the county court judge of the district within which the lands or the greater part thereof in value, are situate, and I propose to insert in place of these words "by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Local Government Board." That is an Amendment I placed in the hands of the officers of the House this afternoon, before the House went into Committee on this Bill, and I think it exactly expresses the object which, very much to my satisfaction, the right hon. Gentleman announced some little time ago. I will not detain the Committee by going into a general discussion at the present time; but I would simply point out to the right hon. Gentleman and to others acquainted with the subject, that the effect of my Amendment with the alteration I have explained—that is to say, if an arbitrator is appointed by the Local Government Board—will apply to this very difficult question the procedure of the Artizans' Dwellings Acts as a modification of the procedure suggested as the first instance by the Government. Those who are familiar with the evidence given before the Commission appointed to inquire into the housing of the working classes in 1885, will remember the very remark- able evidence given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), in which he drew attention to the enormous difference there was in the matter of taking land under the Artizans' Dwellings Acts and the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. I wish at this stage to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that this Amendment was placed on the Paper this afternoon, and that except as regards the point raised in the last few lines, exactly carries out the object he has expressed.

COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

The matter immediately before the Committee is not as to the expenses to be incurred after the Provisional Order is obtained; but as to the expenses to be incurred in the obtaining of the Provisional Order itself. ["No, no!"] Well, the clauses that are proposed to be admitted are clauses relating to the obtaining of the Provisional Order first of all by a County Authority, and then getting it confirmed by Parliament through the action of the Local Government Board. I can say as to the Provisional Orders obtained through the Local Government Board that the expense is very trifling indeed, and therefore if you can, under the Lands Clauses Act, use that mode of obtaining a Provisional Order it is to my knowledge the easiest and cheapest way of proceeding. The county inquiry would cost nothing except for the advertisement. The expenses begin undoubtedly after the Provisional Order is obtained, and you come to acquire the property. It would be well with regard to that to discuss whether the County Court Judge should not act as an arbitrator, instead of his acting as it is now proposed he should do. As to obtaining Provisional Orders, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the procedure is both simple and inexpensive.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

This discussion has broken up into two branches, first as to the expense of the Provisional Order, and next as to the expense of conducting investigations. It is necessary to deal with these two parts of the question separately. I would point out with regard to the obtaining of a Provisional Order, that hon. Members opposite take a view different from that which we take as to the difficulty and delay involved in the process of obtaining such an order. There is no difficulty in obtaining a Provisional Order in a single Session.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

It may take 18 months.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I am dealing with the ordinary normal condition of things. I am speaking of an ordinary Provisional Order, and I will undertake to say that in 999 cases out of 1,000 nothing like 18 months would elapse before it could be obtained. In the vast majority of these cases the Provisional Order would be unopposed, and therefore, in considering this matter, we ought to apply the measure of time which we find is consumed in obtaining the ordinary unopposed Provisional Order. I maintain that, under these circumstances, there will be no difficulty in obtaining a Provisional Order by the month of March. The hon. and learned Gentleman behind me (Mr. Staveley Hill) has spoken of the expense of obtaining the Provisional Order in a certain case to which he referred. Well, he did not tell us what the circumstances of that particular case were. He did not tell us what was the question involved.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

Sewage.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

If it was a sewage question, I can quite understand a large expenditure being involved, because sewage matters very often involve most difficult questions.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

The question was one of the simplest character— namely, which of two sots of lands should be taken.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Well, the proposition the hon. and learned Gentleman now states—namely, which of two sets of land should betaken, would not seem to arise out of a question of sewage, or, rather, would seem to involve the difficulties which an ordinary question of sewage might entail. It is almost unprecedented that the simple question of taking a piece of land for local purposes would involve an inquiry which would cost anything like the amount the hon. and learned Gentleman stated. I will tell the Committee why I speak with authority on this matter. I have had to deal with questions of this kind all over the Kingdom, and I can say that it is only when there are contested questions—where questions of nuisance arise—where, for instance, a neighbourhood objects to have a sewage farm brought down by a neighbouring Local Authority to its doors, or where a water supply is going to be taken or injuriously affected, that great opposition arises. The hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) said it would be unfair if the usual statutory notice was not given. Well, that would involve the outlay of a very few pounds. The Local Government Board make no charge for the Inspector who goes down; and so far as the cost of the Provisional Order is concerned, it is only necessary to spend a small amount—under £ 100 I should think would be ample in most cases. In the case of opposed Orders, as the hon. Member opposite has stated, no doubt it would be quite possible in an exceptional instance, where you may have some great contest as to whether or not a particular piece of land is to be taken, considerable expense might be involved. But that is not the class of case we should have under ordinary circumstances to contemplate under this Bill. I can scarcely conceive there being opposition to a Provision al Order under this Bill, unless the Guardians or Local Authority have wholly mistaken their duty in the case. It would be an extraordinary proposition to lay down that land is to be taken without statutory authority, and I must join issue with the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division on this matter. I have some knowledge of the case he referred to, with regard to which he stated that the town of Birmingham was put to an enormous expense. But that was a case in which a magnificent street was run through Birmingham, and hundreds of thousands of pounds were involved in the acquisition of land. That kind of case bears no parallel to the acquisition of five, 10, or 15 acres of land in a small country district, or in a district adjoining a town, for labourers' allotments. Dealing with the taking of a few acres of agricultural land, I can confirm the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend who sits behind me, that the expense, under the circumstances, will not be increased by the procedure under the Lands Clauses Act. The procedure is, undoubtedly, very simple indeed. Where heavy expense is involved is where such matters are introduced as have been referred to by hon. Members, or where arbitrators are chosen, one on one side and one on another, and where an umpire is appointed to decide between them. The machinery of the Lands Clauses Act being adopted, which provides for notices of a simple character being given—machinery which has been working for 40 years without any amendment at all —to that it is suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite to add a provision to the effect that where the tribunal fails to agree an umpire shall be appointed by the Local Government Board. That seems to me to be about the simplest possible procedure we could conceive. The Committee are perfectly aware that under the Lands Clauses Act there may be a jury. Well, I do not deny that under certain exceptional cases there have been high verdicts given; but it must be borne in mind that any extraordinary miscarriage of justice that occurs makes a great deal more noise than a whole series of decisions where there has been no such miscarriage. However objectionable one or two verdicts may have been, there have been large numbers with which no fault could be found. I say this, and there are plenty of Members in the House who will confirm me, that these cases do not arise with reference to the purchase and sale of agricultural land. They arise in connection, with land which is supposed to have some extraordinary value, or where, as has already been stated, some controversial issue has been raised. It is where there are elements of doubt and difficulty and uncertainty in the case that there is a probability of large expenditure being involved, and cases of that kind we should find it difficult to understand unless we knew the whole circumstances. When you are dealing with agricultural land and are obliged to have a jury or an arbitrator, I do not think that the verdicts of the juries or the awards of the arbitrators have been excessive or have allowed too high prices for the land. Looking at the returns of awards, you will be surprised to find, if you eliminate certain circumstances, that the prices given have been very little more than the market value. I say that because I do not want the Committee to think that, because they are adopting the machinery of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act which apply to land, they are in any way involving the Local Authority of necessity in any unfair expense. If we are are going to make this Bill workable, we should, as far as possible, adopt the existing system, unless it is to work an injustice. The question of the County Court Judge has been given up, and the hon. Gentleman has himself said he is prepared to have one arbitrator instead; and, therefore, it comes hack to this. I trust the Committee will come to the conclusion there ought to be, in justice and fairness, control equivalent to Parliamentary power. If that be so, you cannot have anything cheaper or more ready to your hand than this system of Provisional Orders, which, at any rate in England, has been done at comparatively small expense. I only desire to say one word with regard to the observation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kilkenny. His observation was that the Privy Council in Ireland made the Order——

MR. CHANCE

No; what I said was that the Order was self-acting, and, unless objected to in a limited period, confirmed itself without any special confirmation by a Bill.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

But then it was provided that if there was was no arbitration the Privy Council in Ireland was substituted. I do not think anyone would rise in this House and say it would be desirable to make the Privy Council an umpire. I am sure we only desire to make this Bill a practical Bill, and we shall do that more easily by adapting to the existing machinery some mode of assessment which will avoid greater expense; therefore, I submit, if the view suggested by my right hon. Friend is followed out, there is no doubt it would practically reconcile all the grievances presented.

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

The Attorney General recommends the readjustment of the machinery by which the amount to be paid would be computed; and the question I should like to ask him upon that is this—whether under the new tribunal, or the new procedure, which the President of the Local Government Board suggests, the Local Authority will have to pay the extra 10 per cent compensation for compulsory sale, and the 15 per cent for compulsion and severance put together, which has to be paid under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act under ordinary circumstances? In his evidence before the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) said in some cases the extra expense had amounted to 33 per cent. Will that sort of extra price have to be paid, or only a fair price as between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser?

MR. RITCHIE

I may say at once there is no section whatever in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act which has entailed any obligation upon any tribunal having to assess compensation to award 10 per cent, or any other percentage, for compulsory sale.

MR. LAWSON

It has been so construed in practice.

MR. RITCHIE

I believe the hon. Gentleman is right, that it is the practice in assessing compensation to allow 10 per cent for compulsory sale. What would be the effect, whether or not an arbitrator, when appointed in the way I propose, would feel himself compelled to give anything of that kind, it is not for me to say; but there is no obligation upon him to do so. I will read to the Committee the clause which I propose to introduce. I propose, after Clause 3, page 2, line 32, to insert the following:— Provided that any question of disputed Compensation, where the amount claimed or offered exceeds £50, shall not be referred to arbitrators or a jury as provided by 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' and the Acts amending the same, but shall be referred to the arbitration of a single arbitrator appointed by the parties, or if the parties do not concur in the appointment of a single arbitrator, then it should be referred, on the application of either of them, by the Local Government Board. The next section provides for the death of the arbitrator— If an arbitrator appointed for the purposes of this Act dies, or becomes incapable to act before he has made his award, or fails to make his award within two months after he is appointed, his appointment shall determine, and the determination of the compensation shall be referred to another arbitrator appointed in like manner as if no arbitrator had been previously appointed. And then we state— An arbitration appointed under this section shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' and the Acts amending the same, and the provisions of those Acts with respect to an arbitration shall apply accordingly.

MR. LAWSON

I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that of course it stands to reason, and must be obvious to his common sense, that the arbitrator would be guided by the precedents set and the rules established in Court, and would undoubtedly follow the practice pursued under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act up to the present time.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

There is no rule in the matter, but undoubtedly it has been the practice. I think, however, we ought certainly to deal with this question when we come to discuss it.

VISCOUNT WOLMER (Hants, Petersfield)

I would like to ask the Attorney General a question upon a point which he did not touch upon in his interesting statement. I do not wish to appear hypercritical; still, it is the desire of the Committee to stop up all possible loopholes, and therefore I would like to ask this question. The hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed the opinion that most of the Provisional Orders are unopposed, and the expense slight; he has also dealt with the case of Provisional Orders which were opposed but succeeded, and I would like to ask him for an explanation with regard to Provisional Orders that are opposed and thrown out. Supposing a Provisional Order is thrown out, and considerable expense is incurred, that afterwards another scheme is set on foot and successfully carried through, will the allotment tenants under the new scheme have to pay such rents as to cover the actual cost incurred by the Order as well as the cost of the Order that was not carried through? I would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to answer that question.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

As I understand the scheme of this Bill, I should say that certainly of the two schemes referred to by the hon. Member, that the cost of the first scheme which was abortive would not be taken into account. Assume that in the year 1888 an application is made for a Provisional Order; that is opposed and fails, the result of which is that an expense of £400 is incurred. That expense is borne for the time being by the Local Authority out of the rates. Then, in 1890, two years later, there is a successful scheme made which is approved on its own merits, in my judgment there would be no direction to take into consideration in the price to be fixed or given for the land, or in the price for the letting or the rent to be fixed, any money which has been unfortunately wasted or thrown away by the first scheme. I hope I have answered the question satisfactorily.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

I should like to take the opportunity of replying, in as few words as possible, to what has fallen from the President of the Local Government Board and the learned Attorney General, because I am sure they are unintentionally misleading the Committee in this matter. It so happens that I have been for a long time Chairman of Local Bodies who have to apply for Provisional Orders, and I do not remember any that cost less than from £200 to £300, and many of them from £500 to £600.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

For what purpose?

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

For the purpose of taking land; but I should have to go into a very long story if I explained the circumstances of each case.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to remind him that the whole question is for what purpose the land is taken, and the questions of compensation that are raised?

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

I will take him at his own words. He spoke of an unopposed Order costing £100; apply that to the purchase of three acres of land, the value of which may not be more than £100 or £150, and if you have to pay £100 for an unopposed Order the cost will be prohibitory. I do not see the use of coming to Parliament for an unopposed Order; the land might as well be taken by agreement on both sides. To get an unopposed Order seems to me to be a waste of money.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I never suggested it would cost £100—I said under no circumstances could I contemplate it routing so much as £ 100.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to name any Provisional Order that has cost less than £100. In the case of an unopposed Provisional Order I say that the land might just as well be taken by agreement, as the coming up to London to obtain the Provisional Order is expensive even when unopposed, and if opposed, costs as much as an Act of Parliament; and, consequently, the means provided by this Bill is a means that is not at all applicable to the purpose we have in hand, which is to take land as cheaply as possible. It is desirable to take it cheaply, because if a landlord has any ground of complaint he ought to be able to argue and defend his case in a cheap manner; whereas, if he is to appear first before the Sanitary Authority, then to appear again before the County Authority, then to appear again before the Local Government Board, and then, perhaps, to run the gauntlet of opposing the Provisional Order before Parliament, and after that to fight the Local Authorities under the Land Clauses Consolidation Act in order to save his rights, of course it would cost him a tremendous bill. On the other hand, in such a case a large portion of the bill thus incurred would fall on the Local Sanitary Authority, and those who took the allotments would have to pay an increased rent proportionate to the increased cost of the land. In an unopposed case the cost would consist, at least, of making a plan, of serving notices, of the applications to the Local Government Board, and of the local solicitor, whose bill alone, to say nothing of the fees you would have to pay in London and the costs of the Parliamentary agents, would always amount to at least £100. Therefore, I sincerely trust that whatever re-arrangement the Government may make of this clause—and I admit they propose to adopt a more simple process, and a cheaper process, of obtaining land than that proposed in the Bill as introduced—they will get rid of that old-fashioned idea, that in order to take two or three acres of land compulsorily it is necessary to apply to Parliament for compulsory powers.

MR. CHANCE

I understand the clause of the right hon. Gentleman is this—that instead of having arbitrators as you now have you are to have an umpire—["No, no!"]—well, a single arbitrator, which is the same thing. I do not know whether it is intended to allow the parties to traverse the award and go to a jury. ["No, no!"] Well, there is nothing in the proposed new clause about it. There is another point, worth considering now that we are on the question of the compulsory powers the new authority are to have, and I observe the compulsory powers they are to have are powers to purchase out and out. But when I turn to the Labourers (Ireland) Act—which will be found a mine of wealth on this subject, and I advise hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to read it—and turn to Section 1 of the Act of 1885, I find the Local Authority has not only power to purchase land out and out, but power to compulsorily acquire land for a term of years at a reasonable rent. It appears to me that is a very beneficial clause, because, first of all, it enables a Local Authority to try what they can do, and if they find the labourers cannot be had they can hand back the land. Another point is that when you purchase the land cut and out you have to investigate the title, which is sometimes a difficult thing to do; but when you take a lease of the land you only put down the year's rent and not the ready money for the land in bulk; and therefore the cost of investigating the title is practically done away with altogether. This is a provision that has largely reduced the cost of these labourers' allotments dwellings, and I should like to hear some reason why they omitted from this Bill this very necessary and sensible power to lease land.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I will deal with the points that have been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. First, with regard to the appeal to a jury. Unfortunately there was a provision inserted in the Artizans' Dwellings Act to enable you to challenge the finding of an arbitrator by a jury; but there is no machinery in the Lands Clauses Act to enable you to take an award before a jury, and therefore the particular state of things he has referred to cannot arise. With regard to the point in respect of rent-charge, that is a matter worthy of consideration; but it is a fresh point. I may now be allowed to say that I have made inquiry, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has made inquiry, and we are informed that, in cases of an unopposed Provisional Order, the cost in ordinary cases would not be more than £25, and I may also say that large numbers are passed through the House year by year where the cost does not exceed that amount.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

I would urge on the Government the consideration of the suggestion made by the hon. Member with reference to the leasing of land; I think that is the most valuable suggestion we have heard on the Bill, and it is quite certain that it must be less expensive than purchase.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

If not compulsory.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I think the compulsory taking of land on lease would be very valuable. I was a little surprised at the answer the Attorney General, with all deference to him, gave to the noble Lord the Member for Hampshire (Viscount Wolmer) on the subject of the cost of an application for a Provisional Order that failed. Under Section 3 of the Bill is the following:— Such price or rent, that all expenses incurred by the sanitary authority in acquiring the land and otherwise in relation to the allotment, may reasonably be expected to be recouped. Then, under the 6th clause, we find— An amount not less than such as may reasonably be expected to insure the sanitary authority from loss. Putting the two together, I should have thought that meant all cost in respect of the acquisition of the land, and that the rent to be charged under those words is to be a rent to cover the cost of all the applications, as they are all parts of the cost of acquiring the land. If that is not so, it ought to be made clear.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

It is a matter of construction. I only express my opinion, which is that the cost of acquiring the land does not include an abortive attempt. But, if there is any doubt about it, I agree that it ought to be made clear.

MR. CHAPLIN

I have not the slightest objection to land being taken as is suggested, provided it is taken by agreement; but I object to its being taken for a long lease compulsorily. If you take the land compulsorily, the very least you can do is to buy it outright. Although land is taken by lease in Ireland compulsorily, I recollect at the time it was done I thought it was quite as objectionable then as I do at the present moment. No doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it would be convenient to try it as an experiment, and then, if it failed, the land could be handed back.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out there is no proposal of the kind before the Committee, and this is not the time to discuss it.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

I want to say one word with respect to the fundamental principle of these compulsory clauses. The object of compulsion being enacted is to enable the agricultural labourer to get the land at an agricultural price, or something near it. Now, if we are to have a mode of procedure which, even for an unopposed Order will cost £25 to get power to buy the land, as the Attorney General has just informed us, that £25 upon a small plot of land—upon two or three acres— would go far to double the price. If, moreover, you have to pay 10 per cent for compulsory sale and 15 per cent for severance, you further raise the price— in fact, you raise it to about double the agricultural price in the neighbourhood. That places the poor agricultural labourer in an unfair position as compared with the farmer and other tillers of the soil. We wish him to be placed in an equally good position with the farmer, and the clauses, therefore, will be inoperative. The price at which we want to get the land for the agricultural labourer is something near the price at which farmers obtain it; but these compulsory clauses would be likely to act as a deterrent, because any landowner, by threatening opposition, can practically kill, by the expenses entailed, any attempt of the kind, and no Local Authority would be justified in going on in the face of opposition. It is thus in the power of any landlord, if he likes to enter opposition, to force the whole thing to fail, for the land, even when bought, could not be let at such a price as would pay the agricultural labourer to take it.

MR. COBB (Warwick, S. E. Rugby)

I simply wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board when we shall have this clause in our hands?

MR. RITCHIE

I hope to have it printed to-night.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

I only wish to say one word in answer to what fell from the Attorney General. It is quite true there is nothing in the Act at present that gives any compensation for compulsory purchase; but it is also true that a sum varying from 10 to 33 per cent has always been regarded as the sum to be awarded, and though it may not be considered Act of Parliament law it is Judge made law. There is one other exception I have to this mode of raising the value of land, and it is this. Suppose there be an owner of land who, under ordinary circumstances, would be willing to sell by agreement, and he finds by the clause as it stands that he will be able, if he sells, not by agreement but under compulsion, to obtain 10 or 15 per cent put on the purchase price, he will naturally say—"Why on earth shall I sell by agreement?"

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

One item of expenditure has been omitted from consideration by the Attorney General and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The Attorney General mentioned £25 as the figure for which we may expect to get a Provisional Order. Does he mean that is inclusive of solicitor's charges?—because all I can say is that he is greatly mistaken if he thinks so. Suppose an Order is required for some place 300 miles from London, the solicitor, whether he comes alone or with his clerk, is sure to travel first-class.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

They need not come.

MR. CONYBEARE

But they always find excuses to come. I will call attention to a particular case in connection with the City of Truro.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

For what?

MR. CONYBEARE

It does not matter for what—the principle is the same, and what I am going on is the solicitor's charges. The solicitors take very good care to have a number of journeys to London in such cases, and they always travel first-class, and what I put is this —that when you are considering the purchase of land you have to consider the whole of the circumstances; and, therefore, to talk of £25 being a sufficient sum is not in accordance with fact. I will only say, in conclusion, that I am anxious to see the old-fashioned procedure under the Act of 1845 got rid of as far as possible. Let us have a procedure as cheap and as easy as possible.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. COBB

I propose, in page 2, line 7, alter "unable," to insert " within two months after receiving the application or representation named in section two." We object to having any delay in the procedure under the present section if the Sanitary Authority are unable to get land by agreement. Therefore, I propose to insert words providing that if the Sanitary Authority are unable to get land by agreement within two months after receiving a representation from six persons who are authorized to make such a representation they shall then proceed to get the land by the exercise of their compulsory powers.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, after "unable," insert "within two months after receiving the application or representation named in section two."—(Mr. Cobb.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

I cannot accept the Amendment. The negotiations for getting land by agreement might easily extend over the period named by the hon. Member, and it would be out of the question so to limit the powers of the Local Authorities as to compel them to bring the negotiations to a conclusion within the time that it might be possible to conclude them.

MR. COBB

That is one of the points that I want to raise—that unwilling authorities have power to defeat the operation of the Act by protracted negotiations. The Attorney General spoke just now of the short delay there would be in carrying out the compulsory provisions of the Act. Why, if in a few months the authorities can carry out the provisions for compulsory purchase, surely three months—for I do not desire to insist on two months—would be sufficient for them to come to an agreement to purchase voluntarily. I do not care about the purchase being carried out in that time. But I want to see that something is done by them within a fixed time, and that they are not to be allowed to protract the negotiations for months and months.

MR. CHANNING

I have listened to this discussion with attention. [Signs of impatience.] I do not think we should be interrupted. I think the Government would greatly facilitate the discussion on the Bill if they would name some time within which the Com- pulsory powers of the Bill should be put in force. I do not think it is too much to ask that a Sanitary Authority which, be it recollected, is not elected ad hoc, and is only a temporary authority, until the one contracted under the promised Local Government Bill comes into operation, should not be given the plenary powers conferred by this clause merely to please the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), who does not want the Sanitary Authority degraded. Let some time be fixed —three, four, or five months—within which their compulsory powers must be put in force.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I think that the provision embodied in this Amendment would be injurious to the working of the Bill. As the Bill now stands the Sanitary Authority may, as necessity arises, put in force their compulsory powers. But if this Amendment were carried the Local Authorities must act once for all. If they act once then their compulsory powers would be gone for ever. Such a provision must be most injurious to the working of the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, after "acquire," to insert" suitable." —(Colonel Lloyd Anstruther.)

Question proposed, "That the word ' suitable ' be there inserted."

MR. CHANCE

We have heard in the course of this discussion about degrading the Local Authorities, and forcing the hand of the Local Authorities. And now it is proposed solemnly to point out to them that they must only acquire land suitable to the purpose in band. The Amendment assumes that —if they are not prevented by Parliament—the Local Authority will act foolishly and improperly. If there is any feeling on the other side of the House that the Local Authorities will act foolishly and improperly it is useless to proceed with the Bill. For, depend upon it, if the Local Authorities are going to act foolishly and improperly they will not be prevented from doing so by this Amendment. They must, if they do their duty, select land which they themselves think suitable; and it would be reducing this Act of Parliament to an absurdity to go on to tell them, on the face of the clause, that they are not to make fools of themselves by taking land which is unsuitable. There is no force in the words as they stand. If the Amendment pointed out what was suitable—if it said that the Local Authorities were not to take so and so, then there might be something in it; but to put into the clause the word "suitable," and then leave it at large, seems to me somewhat absurd. Therefore I hope that the Committee will not accept the word, and that the Government will reject it.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, after "acquire," to insert "at a reasonable price or rent." — (Mr. Hobhouse.)

Question proposed," That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

The Government is willing to accept the Amendment.

MR. CHANCE

rose, and being received with some marks of impatience on the Ministerial Benches, said: As the Committee seem impatient I will move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chance.)

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I do not know whether it is the real desire of the hon. Gentleman to obstruct the progress of this measure; but I am sure that there has been no impatience manifested which should in the slightest degree arouse the anger expressed by a Motion to report Progress.

MR. CHANCE

I have expressed no anger at all. I am not in the habit of expressing it.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I did not mean to say anything offensive to the hon. Member; but he made a remark which I thought indicated some anger on his part. We are anxious to make progress. If, however, the Committee desire to put an end to the discussion this evening, the Government will not oppose a Motion to report Progress; but, under these circumstances, the responsibility for any consequences which may follow must rest on hon. Gentlemen who desire to interrupt our proceedings.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I do not think that the House is being treated fairly by the right hon. Gentleman. I never heard a discussion conducted more fairly, or in a more reasonable or business-like way, than this has been. But the right hon. Gentleman has got into such a habit of dealing in one way with every phase of opposition that now his only conception of argument is the application of the closure. I never heard a more unjustifiable speech than that which he has just made, charging the hon. Member behind me with Obstruction, and with endeavouring to defeat the Bill. We have endeavoured all through the evening to forward the Bill. I never heard a more reasonable discussion; and now the right hon. Gentleman walks in and talks as if he was going to compel the House to gallop through a Bill of great importance, and one which the Government admits to require considerable amendment. As for the Motion to report Progress, if the Government expect that a Bill of this importance is going to pass through Committee in a single night, all I can say is that they are very much mistaken. I think Progress should be reported at a reasonable hour. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should use the word Obstruction in reference to any proceedings that have taken place to-night.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I am surprised —or rather I am not surprised—at the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, for they are precisely in the usual vein in which he indulges. I have, however, made no remark which justifies the observations which he has made. A Motion to report Progress was made on an Amendment which was accepted. On that I said that if the hon. Gentleman who made that Motion was annoyed at anything which had been said on this side of the House, there was no intention to cause him any annoyance. Thereupon he said that he was not angry, and that there was no intention to express anger or annoyance by the Motion he made. All I then said was, that if hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House are desirous that Progress should be re-ported the Government will make no objection. Is that a charge of Obstruction against hon. Gentlemen? We will accept a Motion to report Progress; but we will not take the responsibility of making such a Motion. Gentlemen opposite have taken great interest in the Bill during the evening, and if they think that after spending seven hours on this measure it is time to report Progress, we will, as I have said, accept a Motion to report Progress from them. Is that a charge of Obstruction, or a charge that, in the slightest degree, justifies the language used by the right hon. Gentleman?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The reason I made the observation I did was, because the right hon. Gentleman used the word "Obstruction" in replying to the hon. Member behind me (Mr. Chance), and said that if the House desired that Progress should be reported the Government would have no objection; but that if Gentlemen on this side of the House moved to report Progress they must take the responsibility. Does that mean that the Bill should, or should not, go on? If all the right hon. Gentlemen meant was that if Progress was moved now he should have no objection, of course we can take no exception to that.

MR. RITCHIE

An Amendment was proposed, which would be recognized by every Gentleman in this House as a reasonable and proper Amendment, to the effect that words should be inserted in the clause providing that the land for allotments should be acquired at a reasonable price or rent. That Amendment the Government intimated their willingness to accept. The hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) then moved to report Progress; and I submit to the Committee this question, whether a Gentleman who merely wished to promote discussion in the interest of the Bill was likely to have moved to report Progress under such circumstances?

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I would ask the indulgence of the Committee for a moment. The time has now arrived when there was an understanding that progress should be made with another measure—the Truck Bill. I would ask the Committee kindly to report Progress now, in order that a measure over which I have sat up many nights this Session may be taken.

MR. CHANCE

I am sorry that the First Lord of the Treasury thought proper to charge me not only with Ob- struction, but with showing heat and temper.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I at once accepted the hon. Member's statement that he did not mean to be angry or to show temper. This is what happened. I said, in the first instance, that he was angry at some observations made on this side of the House. He at once said that there was no anger on his part. I then withdrew my observation. I am sorry for it, and there is an end of it.

MR. CHANCE

I understood that the right hon. Gentleman withdrew his observation; but, having withdrawn it, and sat down, then comes the President of the Local Government Board, charges the same thing over again, calls on the House to sit in judgment on me, and asks whether my conduct is consistent with a desire to forward the Bill. I think my conduct is more consistent with a desire to see an effective Bill pass this House than is the conduct of the Government, who accept an Amendment moved by one of their Unionist supporters, who did not think it necessary to be in his place to move it when it was down on the Paper. But let me inform the President of the Local Government Board that I do not propose to shirk any responsibility which my Motion may attach to me, or to allow him or any other Gentleman to bully, or attempt to bully, me out of doing what I deem to be my duty. And, further, I beg to inform the President of the Local Government Board that his conduct in repeating these charges after the First Lord of the Treasury has very considerately withdrawn them will not assist this Bill through the House or promote the progress of any legislation of which he may have charge.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member withdraw his Motion to report Progress?

MR. CHANCE

No, Sir; I have made the Motion, and I propose to divide upon it.

MR. CHANNING

I must protest against the wholly unfair and unjust charges made by the right hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Members have obstructed this Bill. I desire to draw the attention of the Committee and the country to the fact that so far are we on this side of the House from having adopted obstructive tactics, that during the last half-hour we have abstained from dividing on two questions of importance in order to facilitate progress. Our position is that this Bill, to be a useful measure, needs essential Amendments, and, provided Amendments tending to make the Bill a reality instead of a sham, I do not care myself whether the Amendments come from Conservatives, from Liberals, or from Liberal Unionists; and I should venture to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) to withdraw his Motion to report Progress until the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) has been put from the Chair. Then I think we may very well ask the Government to report Progress. Any fair-minded person must see that one of the most vital questions in the Bill— whether we should allow an additional sum for compulsory purchase or not—is about to come on for discussion. It is, therefore, very important that we should be allowed to report Progress at this stage. Any charge of Obstruction in this matter would be entirely misplaced.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

We have now got to line 8 of the clause. We come next to the consideration of the County Authorities. Do I understand rightly that the County Authority is to remain as it stands at, present in the Bill?

MR. RITCHIE

I propose to retain the County Authority as it now stands in the Bill until a new County Authority is appointed by the Local Government Bill which the Government intend to bring forward.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I do not wish that the question of reporting Progress should be decided under any misapprehension. I should like to know from the Government what they think of now reporting Progress on the Bill. We cannot, it is clear, finish the Bill to-night. At the same time, I think we should do all we can to facilitate progress in any way. We cannot go on much longer; but we should wish to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in charge of the Bill as to the time when Progress should be reported.

SIR WALTER FOSTER

Many Gentlemen who have acted with me in this matter, and who take a great interest in this Bill, have expressed, their desire— from fatigue at the eight hours continuous labour they have undergone——that Pro- gress should be reported. I think that is only reasonable.

MR. RITCHIE

I think we might have completed sub-section (2). If, however, there is a general desire that Progress should be reported, I will not object.

MR. CHAPLIN

The hour is yet comparatively early. We are rapidly approaching the close of the Session, and unless progress is made very shortly with this Bill it will be absolutely impossible to pass it during this Session. I should have thought that Gentlemen who wish the Bill to pass during this Session would have been willing to work at it, even at some inconvenience to themselves, for a little longer time. Indeed, I cannot help looking upon the manner in which this Motion to report Progress has been received as a test of the sincerity of hon. Members opposite in regard to this Bill. I do not think that the hon. Member who moved to report Progress had any cause to express surprise at the manner in which his Motion was received. This Bill is confined to England. It does not extend to Scotland or Ireland. There are Members on both sides of the House representing English constituencies who are deeply interested in this Bill; and I think that it is rather a strong order that when an Amendment has been moved in which many of these Gentlemen take great interest a Gentleman who represents no one interested in the Bill, which does not extend to Ireland, should make a Motion to report Progress in opposition to Gentlemen who are interested in the Bill. If we bring the discussion to a premature close tonight and these tactics are adopted, I do not see how it is possible to pass the Bill this Session.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I must appeal to the Committee partly in my own interest, and partly in that of the public. There is an understanding that the Lords' Amendments to the Truck Bill are to be considered to-night. There was almost an understanding that at 1 o'clock—an hour at which we have nearly arrived—the consideration of those Amendments should be taken. I must make a special appeal on this point to the First Lord of the Treasury.

MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

I am not particularly anxious that Progress should be reported, but I must protest against the language of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin). I must beg the Leader of the House to assume some control over his supporters. The right hon. Gentleman himself withdrew the charge of Obstruction. Then the President of the Local Government Board gets up and repeats it, and now the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division says that he regards the manner in which this Motion is treated as a test of the sincerity of Members on this side of the House in regard to the Bill. Why, Sir, the Bill is more the child of this side of the House than of the other. The Bill belongs more to us than it does to the Government, who threw it hastily together before they understood the subject. I would really beg the First Lord of the Treasury to induce his followers to be more civil in the observations they address to this side of the House.

MR. CHANCE

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division charges me with Obstruction, because I desired to report Progress on a clause which contains the very principle to which he only a short time ago gave an emphatic "No." He wants a Division as a test of sincerity. He shall have it soon.

MR. W. H. SMITH

Obstruction has been mentioned, but I do not think there is any form of Obstruction worse than discussing for 20 minutes whether we shall go on or not. Therefore, in order to put an end to this discussion, I will consent to report Progress.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

SIR WALTER FOSTER

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Bill as a first Order?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I cannot say that. There is some time to be appropriated to the discussion of another important question, if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite and right hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to raise that question. I cannot say when this Bill will be taken again.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

Will the Bill be reprinted? I ask because we have Amendments in manuscript; we have Amendments in print; we have Amendments which have been passed; and we have Amendments contemplated. It will be difficult to deal with all these unless we have the Bill reprinted. Nobody knows what the Government intend to bring forward. We are perfectly in the dark as to what they intend to do, and I should like to ask them to reprint the Bill with their intentions upon it.

MR. RITCHIE

There has been no Amendment made in the Bill which renders it necessary that we should reprint it.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE

You have Amendments in manuscript.

MR. RITCHIE

They are not in the Bill. The Bill is not in manuscript.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE

But we have here a new clause.

MR. RITCHIE

I would point out that the two new proposals of the Government we were careful to have put in print, and to hand to hon. Gentlemen, who have got them now in their possession. I will take care that the manuscript clause I read, as well as the clause printed upon slips, will appear on the Paper in the course of the next day or two.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put down in his own name those Amendments which he proposes to adopt, whether they are at present in his own name or not. He suggested that he was prepared to accept certain Amendments on the Paper, and I think it would be better that he should put these Amendments down in his own name, so that we may know exactly what the Government intend to do.

MR. BROADHURST

If the Bill is taken on Thursday, will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury say whether or not it will be after 10 o'clock at night?

MR. W. H. SMITH

I am not able to answer that question. If we are fortunate enough to reach it on Thursday we shall take it at any hour.