LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS BILL.— [BILL 329.]

HC Deb 25 August 1887 vol 319 cc1915-72

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

COMMITTEE. [Progress 19th August.]

[SECOND NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

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

The Amendment I have to move is for the purpose of getting rid of the necessity of proceeding by Provisional Order, and having to get that Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament. I wish to take this opportunity of referring to the great inconvenience of having an Amendment of an exceedingly impor- tant character put on the Paper this morning only. We have a lengthy Amendment put down by the Government in place of a new clause which was placed in our hands when we were in Committee, and which very largely differs from that clause. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why it is that this and other clauses have been proposed; and, if so, whether he is prepared to give us a reasonable time for their consideration? When Progress was reported last we had been discussing at some length the cumbersome machinery proposed by the Bill as it originally stood, and we were all glad when the right hon. Gentleman told us that by an Amendment which he would put down, at all events, a great part of that cumbersome machinery had been done away with. I understand that we have done entirely with the Quarter Sessions for the purpose of this Bill. [Mr. RITCHIE: Yes.] We have also done away with arbitration to decide the value under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and the land is now to be valued by a valuer to be nominated by the Local Government Board, if the parties cannot agree. I receive that intimation from the right hon. Gentleman with great pleasure; but there is one difficulty which we have not got rid of—that is, in having to proceed by Provisional Order, which Order is to be confirmed by Parliament. I propose to substitute for procedure by Provisional Order an application to the Local Government Board for its sanction to acquire land by compulsion, such sanction to be in the form of a certificate sealed by the Board to have the force and effect of a Provisional Order, and not to require confirmation by Parliament, but to be preceded by a local inquiry, in which the Local Authority shall produce the necessary evidence. It is said that this procedure is an unusual one. So far as I am concerned—and I believe I am right in speaking for the artizans and labourers—what we want is something different, whether it proceeds on old or new lines. It is absolutely essential that if any system of allotments is to act, the expense must be kept down to a minimum. I said the other night that the labourers wished to have the land under no circumstances by way of charity—that they wished to pay for it, and that if they are to pay for it in the form of rent that rent ought to be as small as possible. Now, the preliminary proceeding proposed by this Amendment is that there should be a Local Government Board inquiry. A good deal was said the other day with regard to the expense which such inquiry would involve; but I am bound to differ from the views then expressed, because, so far as my experience goes, the expense of the Local Government Board inquiry is exceedingly trivial. I am told that the Inspectors of the Local Government Board have no fees of any sort, and that the only money paid to them is for their travelling and the hotel expenses. I have made inquiries, and have been told that there was hardly any case in which the whole expense of the Local Government Board inquiry had amounted to £5. An inquiry, then, by the Local Government Board will be eminently satisfactory to all of us; on the other hand, the expense of obtaining a Provisional Order is very great indeed. I cannot speak with much experience on that subject, but I have made inquiries with regard to it, and I find that it is very difficult to get a Provisional Order, even if unopposed, at a less cost than £90. But, rather than that I should exaggerate, let me say £50. [Mr. RITCHIE: No, no!] The expense of the Provisional Order would cause a very material addition to the rent of the land if you are to add it to the price. Again, the application to Parliament might be a very expensive thing indeed because, as the hon. and learned Attorney General said, we must consider with whom the Sanitary Authority will have to deal; and they will be dealing with those who have been described as unwilling landowners. We must remember that they will be very unwilling landowners, because if we are going to pass this Bill with compulsory powers we cannot blind ourselves to the consequences by saying that we are passing a Bill to meet cases which will never arise. As I have said, the landlord will be very unwilling indeed; he will, in fact, be a man to do everything in his power to prevent the labourers having allotments on his land. It must be assumed that the land will belong to these unwilling landlords, who will have refused to sell voluntarily; and, therefore, when the Bill is brought in for con- firming the Provisional Order it will be opposed, and, if I have read the provisions of the Public Health Act of 1875 correctly as applied to this Bill, the Local Sanitary Authority will be considered the promoters of the Bill, and will have to bear the expense. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that all this is most likely to arise in any case where compulsory powers have to be sought. Therefore, I think I have sufficiently explained—for I have no wish, to detain the Committee—the meaning of my Amendment. I would say that at the end of the Amendment I proposed to incorporate, instead of the section of the Public Health Act proposed in the Bill, only Sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 176, and a Proviso at the end of Sub-section 5, which subsections deal with the incorporation of such parts of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act as will still be necessary, including those parts relating to advertisements. In this way I cut out Subsections 3, 4, and 5, which deal with Provisional Orders. I do not desire to detain the Committee any longer. A great deal of nay Amendment is similar to that of the hon. Member for the Wellingborough Division (Mr. Channing), and I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite may see his way to accepting the proposal which seems to me a simple mode of proceeding.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member's Amendment is defective in the last paragraph.

MR. COBB

I propose in the Amendment, in the last line but one, after the word "of," to insert "Section 176 of."

Amendment proposed,

In page 2, line 9, to leave out from the word "authority," to the end of sub-section (4), and insert the words "shall apply for the sanction of the Local Government Board to acquire by compulsion land, whether within or without such district or parish, sufficient for such allotments. Such sanction shall be in the form of a certificate sealed by the Board, and shall, so far as is consistent with the tenour of this Act, have all the force and effect of a provisional order under 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' but shall not require any confirmation by Parliament. Such certificate shall, within seven days after it is scaled, be served upon the sanitary authority and the vendor, and shall be binding upon and enforceable by and against them respectively. The Local Government Board shall, before sanctioning, either wholly or partially, any purchase, institute a local inquiry, and require evidence to be produced by the sanitary autho- rity as to their ability to let in allotments the lands which it is proposed to purchase compulsorily, at rents sufficient to meet the requirements of section two of this Act. Sub-sections (1) and (2), and the proviso at the end of sub-section (5), of section one hundred and seventy-six of ' The Public Health Act, 1875,' shall be incorporated with this Act."—(Mr. Cobb.)

Question proposed, "That the word ' may' stand part of the Clause."

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

The hon. Gentleman, in the remarks he has made to the Committee, has not alluded to many of the points raised in his Amendment. There are many points raised in his proposal other than those to which he has made particular reference; but as the hon. Member himself has not alluded to those particular points, and has confined his observations to a particular matter, I will also confine my observations, if he will allow me, to those matters to which he has limited himself. The point to which he confined himself, I would remind him, has been alluded to before and decided. The question he has raised in this Amendment, as I understand it, is whether or not the machinery set up, in the event of some sanction being required for purposes other than agreement, should provide for this sanction by way of Provisional Order, or by means of inquiry by the Local Government Board without Parliamentary sanction at all. Now, we have discussed that matter in a previous Amendment, and on the last occasion we deprecated any treatment of the landlord in this case different from the treatment in any other case in England—at least, where land is acquired for what is commonly understood as allotment. Now, the hon. Gentleman said, speaking of the expense, and, I think, very justly, that the expense of an inquiry by the Local Government Board is very small; but, at the same time, he said that the expense of a Provisional Order is very considerable, sometimes as much as £50 and more. Now, the hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that inquiry by the Local Government Board would cost very little—hardly anything at all—but, really and truly, the machinery which would have to be adopted, if the hon. Gentleman's proposal were accepted, would involve a charge hardly less expensive than the machinery of the Bill, provided there were opposition to the confirming Bill. What is the machinery? The machinery is an inquiry by the Local Government Board, and at that inquiry everybody who is concerned is heard, and the expenses of the confirmation of the Order which is granted after that inquiry by the Local Government Board, if there is no opposition, is really, practically speaking, nil, the whole expense being the expense previous to the confirming Bill, which the hon. Gentleman admits is small. Well, then, the whole question is, whether the landowner in this particular case is to be treated differently to a landowner in any other case where land is to be acquired compulsorily, and the view of the Government is that the landowner ought not to be treated in any different manner?

MR. COBB

Why not?

MR. RITCHIE

Why should the landlord be treated differently?

MR. COBB

To make a cheaper allotment.

MR. RITCHIE

Yes; but in making a cheaper allotment you may be doing an injustice to the landlord. The landowner has a perfect right, so far as I know anything of the practice which exists at present, to have an ultimate appeal to Parliament, and I have seen nothing whatever in the object which is sought to be obtained by this Bill, which ought to put a landlord in a different position to that in which he is now with reference to any other proposal for the acquiring of his land. I would point out that, so far as expense is concerned—so far as the position of the landowner is concerned—there is no reason to expect that after a full inquiry, which is invariably afforded by the Local Government Board, where the landlord is heard, and every reason that he has to give in opposition to the action of the Sanitary Authority is heard, there is no reason to believe that he will on many occasions oppose the confirmation Bill. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the expense of opposing a confirmation Bill; but I would point out that the expense of that course would be very great, and that the landlord, after having been fully heard before an Inspector of the Local Government Board, would not in one case out of a hundred care to undertake any ultimate appeal to Parliament. It would, even if his taxed costs were paid, be a very considerable expense to the landowner; and that being so, I do not see any reason why the landowner should not have an ultimate appeal to Parliament in this case as well as in every other case in which his land is acquired. It is viewed by a large number of people as a strong order indeed that the landowner should be compelled to sell his land compulsorily, even under a Provisional Order. The Government would take care where the compulsory acquisition of land is necessary to consult the prevailing feeling of landlords; but they think where it would be necessary to compel the landowner it should be done by a simple and easy process. Where the landowners meet the general demands for allotments, we have enabled it to be done in the manner laid down in the Bill; but we cannot go further and treat the landowner under this measure in a different way to that in which landowners are treated under the present law. The whole procedure is simple and inexpensive; and in my opinion and in that of the Government it will not be resorted to once in a hundred times; but we cannot do the landowner the injustice of depriving him of his land without allowing him an ultimate appeal to Parliament, however important it may be to acquire his land, even though it may be necessary for the life of the neighbourhood. I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment to a Division, as the Government cannot in any case assent to it.

MR. COBB

Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to the word "shall" instead of "may" in the clause?

MR. RITCHIE

I have a very strong objection to the insertion of the word "shall" instead of "may." I find that one of the points to which I have referred, the hon. Gentleman did not allude to in his speech. The objection to the word "shall" is this. In the 2nd clause we lay upon the Sanitary Authority an obligation under certain circumstances of acquiring the land. Well, then we go on in this particular clause, having dealt with the question of the voluntary acquisition of land, to say if the Sanitary Authority are unable to hire or purchase by agreement the necessary land, they may petition the County Authority, who, if they are satisfied that it would be to the public advantage to provide allotments, may make a provisional order authorizing the Sanitary Authority to put in force the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. The 2nd clause will be read with this 3rd clause, and it will be the duty of the Sanitary Authority to apply for the compulsory acquisition of land if the conditions laid down in the clause are in their opinion complied with. If the word "shall" were inserted instead of "may," it would mean that, whether or not the conditions as to recouping to the Sanitary Authority the interest on the money they had spent were complied with, they should be bound to take the land compulsorily. If the word "shall" were put in, it would be the imperative duty of the Sanitary Authority to apply to the Local Government Board for compulsory powers whether they considered that the provisions of the Act were complied with or not. My contention is that it should be the duty of the Sanitary Authority, if they cannot purchase the land voluntarily, to do it compulsorily if the conditions laid down are complied with. We cannot consent to part with these conditions.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS (Glamorgan, S.)

Before this matter is finally disposed of, I would put my simple protest on record against the method of dealing with these compulsory powers proposed in the Bill. The Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend seems to me to be essential if we are to deal with landlords who are not willing to meet the Local Authorities. It is perfectly idle to say that you will in every single instance be able to obtain the land you require at such a price as would justify the Local Authority in going in to obtain land from a landowner who is not willing to sell, if you are to use the machinery originally put into this Bill. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that we are diverting from the original authority established for the compulsory purchase of land—that in every instance where the purchase of land by compulsion has had recourse to, the landlord has hitherto had, either directly or indirectly, an opportunity of applying to this House. We are told that it is unheard of to deviate from this rule; but we are going to deviate from rules very soon which will cost this country millions of money. If not in this Session and by the present Ministry, at all events in another Session and by another Ministry, we shall one day lay down a much more generous rule, ignoring the desires of the landlords, whilst complying with the claims of those who want to occupy the land of the country. It is idle to toll me that we are going to get a Provisional Order for £25. In every instance where we are going to use this machinery, and where we have to deal with an obstinate landlord, ire shall find that he will do everything which a lavish expenditure of money can do to prevent allotments being taken from his property. It is true that the ordinary Provisional Order can be obtained for £25; but I venture to say that, supposing this Amendment is rejected and no similar proposal inserted to compel a reluctant landlowner to give up 10 or 15 or 20 acres of land in the neighbourhood of a town or village, it will cost a great deal more than £100 sooner or later. At all events, every penny, every shilling or pound additional expense, if we are to make this experiment successful, which is needlessly incurred will tend to retard the operation of the Act; and I say to the Government, if they do not adopt some machinery as simple and effective as that now suggested, this Bill will be a dead letter. In answer to the charge made against hon. Members that they are endeavouring to obstruct the Bill, I would ask hon. Members to make their protest as short and as brief as they can. Let the Bill go with a mere protest and let the country see that it is a mere sham and a delusion.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON (Devon, Tavistock)

I do not sympathize with the desire of hon. Gentlemen to transfer the authority in the matter from Parliament to a Public Office. If it were a question between Parliament and the reformed County Authority, which I hope we are to have some day or other, I should be in favour of giving it to the County Authority; for I do think there is very little probability of these reforms being obtained if all of them are to be got through this House. But to make a new departure now, to adopt a new authority in the shape of a Government Office, is, in my opinion, simply absurd.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I pointed out on Friday night that in Ire- land, under a precisely similar Code of Acts—the Irish Labourers' Allotments Acts—a Provisional Order does not come before Parliament. If a Provisional Order is objected to, the objection is finally decided upon by the Privy Council. Let me point out that this Amendment realty gives the landlord a better chance than the Irish Act does. If the Local Government Board made an absolute Order under the proposed Amendment, their action could be criticized in the House just as freely as if a confirming Order were before the House; every possible means could be taken by the friends of the landlords to make their grievances known, and, in face of that fact, I confess I am surprised to hear it repeated that there is anything new in the principle. There is nothing at all new in the principle.

MR. RITCHIE

I have not forgotten the remarks the hon. Gentleman made the other night. Of course, we know very well that there are circumstances in Ireland which are in many respects peculiar to the country, and which we do not find in England. I may point out to the hon. Gentleman that if a confirming Bill is not opposed, as it is not opposed in 99 cases out of 100, the effect is precisely the same as the hon. Gentleman says it is in Ireland. If there is no opposition, the Bill goes before the Unopposed Bills Committee, and the expense is almost nil. The Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) referred the other night to the action of the Privy Council, and said, very truly, that if there was a choice between Parliament and the machinery proposed in this Bill and the Privy Council, 99 men out of 100 would prefer the machinery proposed in this Bill.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

Let me say one or two words in reference to this Amendment. The last time the Bill was in Committee I said it seemed to me that these clauses were unworkable, and would be likely to add so much to the cost of the land as practically to render the Act nugatory. In this clause we have to make provision for dealing with obstinate landlords: with landlords who refuse to give voluntarily, allotments to labourers, and who refuse also to help the Sanitary Authority to carry out the work entrusted to them. We really have to deal with the obstinacy of landlords who are willing to spend their money in order to maintain an obstinate objection to the operation of this Bill. The whole history of the enormous amount of money spent on land for public purposes, is a history of obstinacy on the part of landowners, who would not part with their land for public purposes. Now, in the present Bill, we have a public and national purpose much more important than that for which land has hitherto been taken by compulsion. We have to take land for the purpose of saving the peasantry of this country; the peasantry are decreasing by thousands every year because they have practically been kept in a state of servitude. The peasant is the only worker in this country who is unable to get the means to work for himself at his own trade. We want to alter the present system, and these Compulsory Clauses are not strong and not effective enough for our purpose. I believe they will result in adding so much to the cost of the land when purchased under them, that the land will become too dear to be cultivated at a profit, and therefore the whole thing will fall to the ground. I am astonished at hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have been advocating the voluntary principle, being so inconsistent. If the voluntary principle is so powerful, if, indeed, they have no fear of these Compulsory Clauses, but think that these clauses will simply act as a stimulus to voluntary effort, I cannot understand why they should oppose the strengthening of these clauses.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

If I thought Local Authorities would be put to very large expense in the obtaining of Provisional Orders, I should think twice before I supported the provisions of the Bill in this respect. But experience shows that, in a great number of cases, opposition to Provisional Orders is so rare and so small that, practically, it may be disregarded altogether. I think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board is quite right in saying that there is no opposition to Provisional Orders in 99 cases out of 100. But I am not prepared to say that, in the present instance, there should be no appeal against Provisional Orders. It is sufficiently possible to conceive injustice being done even by the Local Government Board to make it desirable to reserve the right of appeal. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) has adverted to the case of Ireland; I take it that the Privy Council there is put in the place of Parliament, and for the very purpose of preventing the expense which would be entailed by parties coming to Westminster—not to prevent an appeal from the decision, but in order to give another kind of appeal. If it were at all desirable to substitute the Privy Council for Parliament, that might be an argument; but no one will pretend to propose that. I think that, on the whole, Parliament would be a better tribunal in England than the Privy Council. The cases would be very rare in which there would be an appeal; and I think, therefore, that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, we may allow this clause to stand as it now is. It may be worth while considering hereafter whether there should not be some simple process of appeal. I should also like to point out that in most cases of appeal—cases of Provisional Orders—Committees have power to give costs if they think the opposition is frivolous; and I cannot help thinking that if landlords were obstructive, and in one or two cases a Committee of this House gave costs against them, we should hear very little in future of such opposition. I therefore think the Committee will do wisely in adopting the proposal of the Government as it stands.

MR. CHANCE

I have heard many prophecies, but I have something better than prophecy to offer in the case of Ireland, where the Privy Council is the absolute authority. Landlords in Ireland, almost to a man, have taken their appeal to the Privy Council. They have fought their appeals tooth and nail, and they have not been deterred by any fear of costs or anything else. The Irish landlords are comparatively poor, and one would say they could not so well afford to fight in cases such as these as English landlords could. English landlords will give allotments to labourers whose politics agree with theirs, and refuse allotments to those whose politics are not similar to theirs.

Question put,

The Committee divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 66: Majority 76.—(Div. List, No. 420.) [1.30 A.M.]

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 9, to leave out the words "the county authority of the county in which this district or parish is situate, and the county authority (after such inquiry and procedure as provided in the sections hereinafter incorporated in this Act) may, if satisfied that it will be to the public advantage to provide such allotments," in order to insert "the Local Government Board to."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

We propose, by an Amendment, to set up the Local Government Board to exercise and perform the duties of the County Authority under this Act until the new County Authorities are established. When this is done, we propose that the functions of the Local Government Board shall be confined to introducing a Bill confirming the Provisional Orders. I do not gather whether the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the new County Authority acting when they are set up, or whether he is simply opposed to the County Authority in the meantime. If he is opposed to the County Authority altogether, then we must object to the proposal of the hon. Member.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

If we are to have first to go before the Sanitary Authority, then to the County Authority, and then before the Local Government Board, there will be great delay and expense. The objection is to the County Authority interposing between the Sanitary Authority and the Local Government Board.

MR. RITCHIE

The proposal of the Government is that until the new authority is set up the Local Government Board shall be the authority to issue the Provisional Order, and that when the new County Authority is the representative of the different areas throughout the country, then the Provisional Order shall be issued by the County Authority, and not the Local Government Board; that is to say, that the Sanitary Authority, instead of applying to the Local Government Board to issue the Provisional Order, will apply to the new representative County Authority, who will, by means of a committee or otherwise, make inquiry and issue the Provisional Order. In making that arrangement, the Government believed they were going in the direction of decentralization and granting that ex- tension of local self-government which everyone desires. The Local Government Board will act purely ministerially in presenting the Bill to Parliament.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

That is exactly what I said. The now County Authority will interpose—["No, no!"] I say it will make a new process necessary in order to obtain the Provisional Order. It is clear that you have first to apply to the Sanitary Authority, thon to the County Authority, and then, as has just been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, the County Authority is to go to the Local Government Board, and they will present the Bill to Parliament; and the whole of that process has to be gone through to get two acres of land. Under those circumstances, the Bill is simply waste paper, so far as concerns getting land by compulsion. I shall be obliged to press my Amendment.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on this Amendment, because I think the Government proposals are far more liberal than that of the hon. Member. Instead of the Petition going before the Department in London it goes into the hands of the representative authority in the county in which we live; in other words, it goes into our own hands. The Local Government Board, in case of need, must present the Bill, and that they will do without expense, whereas, if the County Authority had to do this they would have to bear all the expense. The effect of the Government proposal is, therefore, quite contrary to what the hon. Gentleman presumes. I hope that this matter will not take up any more time. For my own part, I am very pleased to find such a decentralizing proposal emanating from the Government. I should not have thought of proposing anything of the kind, because I should not have expected the Government to accept it.

MR. CHANCE

I think that probably a misunderstanding has arisen here, owing to the Government having put in lines 19 and 20 that "any County Authority" may apply to the Local Government Board to introduce a Bill confirming the Provisional Orders. To say that "any County Authority" may do this is, of course, nonsense. I trust there will be no Division on this Amendment, because, as far as I can see, there is very little in it.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I do not understand why the Government have not put an Amendment on the Paper to restrict this clause and make it conform with the distinct promises given to the House. The appeal to the county magistrates, as the Committee is aware, has been got rid of. The clause as it stands is perfect nonsense.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, leave out from "if satisfied" to "such allotments," in line 14.—Viscount Wolmer.)

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

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

The first part of the Amendment standing in my name has already been discussed, with the result that the Government are going to leave it to the Local Government Board to decide in case of any dispute between the seller and purchaser of the land. With regard to the last part of the Amendment, which settles the price as between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser, that can be hotter dealt with when the Amendment on page 35 is reached, and it will therefore save time if I do not move it.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

The object of the Amendment which I rise to move is to give power to the Local Government Board to authorize the Sanitary Authority to take land on lease for the purpose of letting it for allotments. I think in some cases the Sanitary Authority will be loth to raise on loan the money necessary to buy land for putting in operation the provisions of the Bill; on the other hand, I am of opinion that if they can take land on lease they will not have the same objection, and that the result will be that the Act will come into operation in a greater number of cases than it otherwise would.

Amendment proposed,

In page 2, line 18, after the word "agreement," to insert the words—"(3.) The Local Government Board may, by a Provisional Order under this Act, authorise a sanitary authority to take compulsorily any lands referred to in such order for any term of years not exceeding ninety-nine years, at a rent, and subject to terms, provisions, and conditions, to be determined in case of difference in the manner by this Act prescribed for the determining a question of disputed compensation; and the provisions of ' The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' and the Acts amending the same, and of this Act, shall apply as if such compulsory taking for a term of years were a purchase of land otherwise than by agreement. A lease of lands compulsorily taken for a term of years under this Act may be in the prescribed form or to the like effect, and shall be effectual to vest the lands so taken in the lessees for the term and subject to the rent, conditions, and provisoes therein expressed."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)

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

MR. CHAPLIN

This question was raised the other night by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance). He pointed out that its principle had already been adopted in the Bill which applies to Ireland; but even if that is the case I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. It must be generally admitted that this Bill means that the land is to be taken by compulsion. Of course, in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite land which may have been purchased and paid for by the landlord is not his property, and may be taken by them whenever they want it; some of them, at any rate, think that a far more generousrule should be adopted than that of paying for the land. It was pointed out the other night that this might be a very convenient Amendment to adopt, because it was said that the experiment might be tried for a time, and that when the lease fell in it would be taken back by the landlord. I should like to know in what state the land would be when an experiment of this kind had been tried upon it? I am bound to say that when you adopt the principle that the land should be taken by compulsion, the very least you can do is to buy the land outright, and give the landlord what compensation he is entitled to; and unless the terms are left entirely to the landlord, I hope the Government will refuse the Amendment.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

I hope the Government will not accept the advice of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I look upon the Amendment as a very important one, and I believe that if it is agreed to the Bill will be a much greater success than it otherwise would be. There are two precedents for this proposal; one is to be found in the Crofters Act, and the other in the Labourers (Ireland) Act. In both Ireland and Scotland it has been found to be a very useful provision, and it has greatly facilitated the working of those measures. I am sure, if the House will adopt it, that it will greatly simplify the operation of the Bill and relieve the Sanitary Authority of the necessity of finding money for the purchase. It is very easy to understand that there might be such a condition of things that the Sanitary Authority would prefer to take the land for a term of years. On the whole, I think the landlord would be placed in a better position by the introduction of this Amendment; and I again express the hope that the Government will not follow the advice of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

MR. RITCHIE

The right hon. Gentleman advanced an argument in this case to the effect that in many cases the landlord would prefer to sell the land if the option were given to him. Well, there is nothing to prevent the landlord doing that if he does prefer it. Under the Bill, land may be acquired by three processes. The Sanitary Authority may lease or hire it, and the right hon. Gentleman may see that the landlord in that way has the opportunity he desires to have to sell his land rather than to let it. Then the landlord has an opportunity of letting his land, and in cases where that cannot be done and it may be desirable to buy it, the landlord may be compelled to sell under certain restrictions. We are asked to still further extend the principle of compulsion and to compel landlords to part with their land for a term of years. As far as I am concerned, that is a proposal which we cannot entertain for a single moment. We consider that it would be open to all the objections which my right hon. Friend the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) has referred to. We consider that it would be wrong to compel the landlord to part with his land in order to enable the Local Sanitary Authority to make experiments to ascertain whether or not it could let the land advantageously to tenants. Apart from that objection, which, so far as the Government are concerned, they think vital, I would point out another objection—namely, that it would have an injurious effect upon the working of the Bill. One can easily conceive that many occasions would arise in which the landlord would be perfectly willing to sell his land voluntarily to the Local Sanitary Authority, but in which, if he were compelled—if there were any power in the Bill to compel him to part with his land for a limited term of years, he would resist it to the utmost.

MR. CHANCE

Let me point out— I "Order, order!"]——

MR. RITCHIE

The hon. Member will have an opportunity of speaking after I have done. The landlord might be willing to sell his land, but not willing to let it under the provisions of this clause. If he could not be compelled the operation of the Bill would be perfectly simple, as there would be no question of opposition or compulsory powers or Provisional Orders. There would be no expense whatever. The whole thing would be done voluntarily; but if the Sanitary Authority insisted on hiring the land rather than buying it the landlord would resist it and compel the Sanitary Authority to go for a Provisional Order, and ultimately to appeal to Parliament, and perhaps the Confirmation Bill would be opposed by the landowners, and large expense would be inflicted on the locality; whereas, if the question were one of purchase, the whole thing would be done voluntarily. The Labourers (Ireland) Act has been referred to. I am told that this particular section in that Act does not work by any means satisfactorily, and that the operation of it is exactly as I have pointed out—namely, that the landlords willing to sell are unwilling to let for a fixed period; so that the whole operation of the compulsory powers have to be resorted to. We cannot impose on the landowner the unjust provision of the proposal now made.

MR. CHANNING

I do not wish to detain the Committee upon this Amendment; but I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire what may be in the recollection of many Members of this House, that the Bill introduced by the present Earl of Winchilsea, when he was in this House last year, which was, in my opinion, a satisfactory Bill—and I am not sure that the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire was not on the back of it—there was one clause that completely met the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. It was this, that when the compulsory power was to be put into operation the landowner was left the option of saying to the Local Authority—"You shall take the land on lease——"

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

That is in the Bill now.

MR. CHANNING

I do not see that it is in this Bill. No doubt when you are dealing with the voluntary agreement stage you can say that it is in the Bill, but when you are dealing with the compulsory stage you can say nothing of the kind; the landlord is bound to sell. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire was singularly significant. He dwelt with complacency on the fact that there was not much compulsion likely to come about or intended to be brought about by this Bill—I am judging from the general tone of his remarks. That seems to be a comment upon what he said on the second reading, in his interchange of compliments with the hon. Member for Bordesley—namely, that this humble measure had no resemblance whatever to that dangerous "Unauthorized Programme," which was the expression of what he once described as the "predatory instincts" of the hon. Member and his Friends. I should like to know if the Amendment before the Committee provides for the absolute protection of the landlord in this matter? It seems to me that it offers a satisfactory means of meeting very serious difficulties. The point which makes me support this Amendment most heartily is just this. Everyone who is in any way familiar with the neighbourhood of large towns must know perfectly well that the great question of the future must be whether we shall give Local Authorities power to buy up and appropriate land around towns, and so appropriate all the prospective building value of these lands. I think myself it would be a great injustice at the present moment to insist upon the compulsory purchase of land in the neighbourhood of large towns at its agricultural value. At the same time, you will defeat the purpose of this Bill, and destroy the value of it to labourers and artizans who want land if you do not provide them with allotments at agricultural value. It, therefore, seems to me reasonable and proper before we settle this question of the unearned increment, which is a question which must be settled in the future, that we should in the mean time introduce some provision of this kind to enable the Sanitary Authority to take lands for a certain definite period. If this Amendment is unsatisfactory on account of the period it fixes, then insert in it some shorter period. That would enable labourers and artizans to obtain land now on such reasonable terms that they can make a fair profit out of it, and then in a few years time the landlord might come into his land, and be able to realize the building value of it, supposing the value of land in that neighbourhood were increasing. In that way, I think, you would be able to guard the interests of all parties, and provide allotments cheaply and quickly. The important thing under this Bill is to secure for labourers an amount of land at agricultural value on which they can exert their labour. If by your procedure you compel the Authority to import into the price of lands in the neighbourhood of towns the building value as well as the agricultural value you would be acting unjustly to the labourer, by making it impossible for him to get land on reasonable and profitable terms.

MR. CHANCE

There seems to be some misapprehension in this matter, and I point it out for the purpose of easing the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that the adoption of this Amendment would lead to expense and friction and trouble, because he said the landowner would be willing to sell but might not be willing to let, and if the Sanitary Authority insisted on leasing then the landowner would put his back to the wall and fight the thing out. If that were a sound argument it would be fatal to the Amendment, but under the clause we are discussing there is a condition laid down precedent to the use of any compulsory power whatever by any authority, and what is that condition? It is that the Sanitary Authority must be unable to hire or purchase the land by agreement. Therefore, under this clause all the landlords objecting to a compulsory lease has to do is to say to the Sanitary Authority—"I am willing to sell you my land at a fair price," and then if the Sanitary Authority insists on attempting to use the compulsory powers he may go before a higher authority, and make a representation to the effect that he was willing to sell at a fair price, and the Local Government Board would thereupon decide that the compulsory powers could not be put into operation. That surely ought to bias the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire. I pointed out that there was a precedent for this legislation. I asked the House to recollect the date of that Act—namely, the 14th of August, 1885. That Act was passed both by this House and the other House of Parliament by a Conservative Government. I need not add anything more. I want to know, Sir, why a Conservative Government who were willing to do this for the Irish labourers are not now willing to do it for the English labourers?

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

If I thought that this Amendment would facilitate the operation of the Act I would support it, but I think it would have the contrary effect. I quite admit the precedent of the Crofters Act. In that Act it was provided that power should be given for an extension of the existing holdings, and as these holdings were all held under lease it was necessary that the extensions given in the Bill should also be under lease, but in that case no alternative by purchase was given. If it had been possible to give an alternative by purchase in this case, I think it would have been found a much better and cheaper method, because where you have a choice I think it must be clear to everyone that the cost to the Local Authority of the neighbourhood of land which is paid for by money borrowed from the Exchequer would be much less than any fair rent that might be fixed by an impartial authority. Therefore, what is practically proposed by the Amendment is to give to the Local Authority an alternative which would be worse than that of the Bill.

MR. HANDEL CSOSHAM (Bristol, E.)

I must say I heard with considerable surprise the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. This Amendment appears to me to be so reasonable that I am astonished that Her Majesty's Government will not accept it. I am afraid that without this Amendment the Bill will be inoperative. I would remind hon. Members that it is not necessary that all the land about which they speak should be purchased from the landowners.

MR. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)

I think we must take precautions against the piling up of debt on the part of the Local Authorities. Their obligations are already very heavy, and it is necessary that we should do something to provide an alternative to their development. By the Amendment before the Committee we should obtain land for allotments without further debt on the part of the Local Authorities, and I think that is one very great reason for adopting the proposal. No doubt, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) said, there are cases in which the leasing of the land may be more expensive than buying it out and out, and that should be a sufficiently good reason for the Local Authorities not favouring the course of leasing. I think it a pity that the Government should desire to put England behind Ireland and Scotland in this matter. It is the object of this Bill to create allotments with facility. I do not know if that is the object of all the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite; but as was pointed out by an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, although a Conservative Government passed the Agricultural Labourers Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, being a Member of that Government and agreeing to all that measure, he is not now willing to pass a similar provision for England. I cannot help thinking that one reason may be that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are not as sincerely anxious to give these facilities for providing allotments for workmen as they make believe to be.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I have no objection to the Amendment, but I fail to see how it can facilitate the acquisition of allotments by labourers. As the Bill stands the Local Authority has power, by voluntary agreement, to hire land as well as to purchase it, and I have no doubt, and have always contended, that once a compulsory Bill is passed compulsion will be very rarely necessary. I have no doubt that in a very small number of cases land will be taken for short terms for purposes of allotments, and it seems to me certain that if the Local Authorities were to put the compulsory powers in force for taking land on lease in their localities they would be opposed, and there would have to be faced all the expenses of that opposition, whereas in the purchase of land such difficulty would not arise. I am a very strong advocate of the community possessing land wherever it can. On the Birmingham Town Council I have never failed to vote in favour of any proposal enabling the Committee to buy land, under any circumstances. We ought to favour as much as possible the idea of land being municipalized, if I may so term it.

MR. H. GARDNER (Essex, Saffron Walden)

I wish to offer a few remarks to show why I shall especially support this clause, which I consider a most important one for the agricultural labourers whom I have the honour to represent. I think that, in the first place, it would be much easier to persuade Local Authorities to lease land than to buy land. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) has told us that this principle is a most unfair one. I cannot see why it should be more unfair in England than it is in Scotland or in Ireland, and we have already had precedents quoted to us from Scotland and Ireland, showing that the principle of leasing land by compulsion is at the present moment adopted in those countries. It seems to me that hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to whittle down the compulsory principle of this Bill as far as possible. It is a most refreshing sight for us on this side of the House to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) in a determined attempt to thwart the predatory provisions of this Bill. As the Representative of a Division which contains as many if not more agricultural labourers than any other represented in this House I do most warmly support this Amendment, and I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Seale-Hayne) will proceed to a Division.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS (Glamorgan, S.)

It appears to me that this clause, with one modification, will be of considerable use. In spite of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, I may say I do hold a little land. The land is in the neighbourhood of towns. Surely it is desirable that a Local Authority should have power to say—"We will take your land subject to your right of re-entry for building purposes." There cannot be any objection to such a provision, and I think the Government would do well to accept this Amendment.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I am not particularly wedded to the principle of leasing, the more so as we on this side of the House advocate the principle of Leasehold Enfranchisement. But I am bound to say that there are cases where it might be very desirable that land should be leased rather than purchased, and it appears to me that in the interests of the good working of this Bill this is one of those cases. I have no hesitation whatever in supporting this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for the Ashburton Division of Devonshire (Mr. Seale-Hayne) only desires to see this Bill made a really useful and workable Bill. I say that fully conscious that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) may very shortly take another opportunity of meeting a few friends on his lawn at Birmingham, and denouncing all of us as personally obstructing a Bill which he says we do not desire to see passed. We have a perfect right to speak upon this measure, because in spite of the taunts of right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, or on the other side, we do happen to represent agricultural labourers. I venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that I have probably more agricultural labourers in my constituency than he has in West Birmingham. When this clause is supported by such undoubted Representatives as the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken, and also the hon. Members for the Ash- burton Division of Devonshire (Mr. Seale-Hayne) and the Wellingborough Division of Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing) and the Rugby Division of Warwickshire (Mr. Cobb), I think it would be impertinent for a Member for any city or borough in the country to set up his experience in opposition to theirs. What are the arguments which we have heard against this proposal from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) who is in charge of this Bill? He tells us that it is very unfair to the landowners that they should have the land returned on their hands after the Local Authorities have made experiments under this Bill. I want to know why it is unfair? The land, if it is altered in character at all, will probably be altered for the better; it is not likely to be altered for the worse, because we have often heard from right hon. Gentleman opposite that a great deal of this land is not worth cultivating at all at the present time. The effect of a few years, or even of a few months' cultivation, would be that the spade culture of the agricultural labourer would have increased the fertility of the soil in the way that everybody knows allotment culture does as compared with cow culture. I have no hesitation in saying that if anyone were to benefit by a few years experiments of this kind, it would be the landlord if he should have the land returned to him. I am reminded by an hon. Gentleman near me that the landlord could recover damages for any loss under his covenant, a circumstance which certainly adds considerable force to our argument. Another argument which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board used was that the Government would not compel landowners to part with their land for a limited period. Now, I want to know whether is it worse, once you have adopted the principle of compulsion, to compel a landowner to part with his land for a limited period than to part with it for ever? It appears to me that the greater includes the worse, and that if you compel a man to part with his land for ever it is certainly a far less grievance to compel him to part with it for only a limited period. Then he said that in this conclusion the Government have gone to the utmost limit of what they consider necessary. We have heard something to-night of wobbling. Until this Bill is through the House, and through the House of Lords, I shall not believe that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have come to the end of their tether.

MR. C. W. GRAY (Essex, Maldon)

The hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex (Mr. H. Gardner) has given his opinion as to what the labourers have to say on this question. I have considerable knowledge of agricultural labourers, and I have always found when they argue these questions for themselves, and not through the medium of gentlemen who profess to know a great deal about agricultural labourers, but who perhaps do not know very much after all that agricultural labourers recognize the principle of fair play, and I am sure they would wish to be fair in this matter. The Government are trying to pass a generous Bill. [Cries of "No!"] Generous in the opinion of such hon. Members as the Members for Birmingham, who took an interest in this question before the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex (Mr. H. Gardner) knew anything about labourers. I should be putting myself in a most difficult position if I were, in this House, to say one word antagonistic to the real interests of labourers. I have been surprised that all these hypercritical Amendments should be proposed in the Committee, because I think that the Government have proposed a generous measure, and that the House ought to recognize that fact.

MR. F. W. MACLEAN (Oxford, Woodstock)

I am surprised that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), who is in favour of Leasehold Enfranchisement, should support such an Amendment as this. The hon. Gentleman said that under the circumstances he supported this Amendment, but he did not say what were the circumstances. He is at times somewhat erratic in his courses, and I think he has been so on the present occasion. But I rise principally, Mr. Courtney, to reply to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex. I entirely differ from him in the suggestion that he threw out that it was the intention of the Government, or the desire of the Government, to whittle down the principle of compulsion. I venture to submit to the Committee that if this clause were carried it would be extending, and extending not only in a very novel direction, but to a certain extent a dangerous direction, the principle of compulsion. What is the principle of compulsion? It is simply this, that the State interferes and says that a landowner must give up his land for public purposes when it is in the interest of the State that it should be given up for such purposes. It is only on this principle, and on this principle alone, that the question of compulsion rises at all. When my hon. Friends refer to the precedents in Ireland and in Scotland, I ask them to bear this in mind, that the Land Clauses Consolidation Act was passed so long ago as 42 years—it was passed in 1845—and never since that period has it been suggested, until to-day, that Railway Companies or any other Companies requiring land compulsorily, under the provisions of that Act should be enabled to take the land for a limited period. Therefore, if we look upon the question as one of precedent, it is quite clear that, so far from precedent being in favour of my hon. Friend's contention, it is all the other way. Let me point out, however, that if this Amendment is carried, and this principle is sound, it will apply equally to the case of Railway Companies, who would compel landowners to give land for the purpose of Railways. They might take land for seven or 14 years, and after they had speculated with it, and found that the speculation was a bad one, they might say to the landowner—"You must take the land back." I consider that, not only on these grounds, but also on those urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), this Amendment is not only unsound in principle, but it seems to be inexpedient in point of practice.

MR. CHANCE

I do not see the precise parallel between Railway Companies and agricultural labourers. I cannot help thinking that this clause would facilitate the working of the Act, instead of hampering it, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham thinks it would. As the proposal stands, the position of an unreasonable landlord will be this. He will say—"I will neither lease nor sell voluntarily, and thereby I shall be enabled to weary the Local Authority, and to put them to so great expense and trouble that they will be glad to band me the full fee simple of the land." If this Amendment were accepted what would be the position of the landlord who declined to lease or sell at a fair price? The Local Authorities, as a set off, might say—"If you decline to do anything voluntarily we will apply for a compulsory lease, and will not buy the land at all." This would compel unreasonable landowners to consider what their position was before they came to loggerheads with the Local Authorities; whereas, if a landowner were reasonable he could prevent compulsory power being exercised at all by either leasing or selling willingly at a fair price. In the face of these facts, I do not see how this Amendment could encumber the operation of the Act.

MR. CHAPLIN

I should like to point out the difference between Ireland and England in this respect. It is asked why we should not apply this principle to England, seeing that a Conservative Government have already applied it to Ireland. In England a man may wish to sell his estate. In those times it may be of great importance to a man to realize either the whole or some part of his estate. If you pass this Amendment you absolutely take away from a landowner the right to realize his property. Do you think that is fair? If the land is taken for 99 years how is it possible for a man to sell it? [An hon. MEMBER: He could sell it subject to the lease.] There is nothing in the clause which bears such a contention out. The case of Ireland is totally different, because there you have passed laws already by which land is compulsorily taken away from the landowner for at least 15 years, and, so far as I have ever been able to understand, in perpetuity. The distinction between the two countries is perfectly clear. To deprive a landowner in England, at the present moment, of the possibility of realizing his property would be as gross an injustice as it is possible to do.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

I am extremely anxious we should not go to a Division on the false issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin). Does the right hon. Gentleman contend for a moment that the length of lease—whether it be 7, 21, or 99 years, forbids a man to sell his estate if he is anxious to do so? If a landlord wished to sell his estate he would sell it subject to the compulsory lease and to all the conditions of tenancy existing under any circumstances. I never heard an argument addressed to any assembly of men so contrary to the first principles which regulate the commerce of land.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 135: Majority 85.—(Div. List, No. 421). [2.20 A.M.]

MR. CONYBEARE

It is now half-past 2 o'clock, and I move that the Chairman report Progress. I hope the Government will now allow us to go home.

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

MR. CHANNING

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in his Motion. I think the Committee are extremely anxious to go on with the Bill.

MR. CONYBEARE

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that we should spend two hours on the Bill.

MR. RITCHIE

I trust the hon. Member will allow us to proceed. There is an Amendment in my name, which, I trust we shall be able to reach, and I suggest that we should go on, at any rate until a point is reached at which considerable discussion is likely to arise.

MR. CONYBEARE

How long?

MR. RITCHIE

I should like to finish the 3rd clause.

MR. CHAPLIN

I shall press this Bill forward with all the force in my power. It may be that the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) wants to go home. But if that is so, why in Heaven's name does he not go? I am sure that the absence of the hon. Member, so far from injuring the Bill, would facilitate its progress.

MR. CONYBEARE

I am, under the circumstances, prepared to withdraw my Motion. But I may state, for the information of the right hon. Gentleman, that, personally, I am not at all anxious to go home, nor do I intend to do it. I made the Motion in the interest of Gentlemen on his own side of the House. As I said, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Motion; but I shall renew it at 3 o'clock:

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 32, at end, insert—Provided that— (a.) Any question of disputed compensation, where the amount claimed or offered exceeds fifty pounds, 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, on the application of either of them, by the Local Government Board, and the remuneration to be paid to the arbitrator appointed by the Local Government Board shall be fixed by that Board; (b.) 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: Provided always, that the same arbitrator may be re-appointed; (c.) An arbitrator appointed under this section shall be deemed to be an arbitrator 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; and, further, the arbitrator shall have power to disallow as costs in the arbitration the costs of any witness whom he considers to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which he considers to have been incurred unnecessarily."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from lines 2 and 3, the words, "where the amount claimed, or offered, exceed fifty pounds."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)

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

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 9, after "Board," insert, "which arbitrator shall be resident surveyor in the district."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

I think this would be a very unnecessary and injudicious Amendment. It might be, that the most desirable man to appoint does not reside in the county, and yet is very familiar with the value of the land.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

I know very well what happens when an arbitrator is sent down by the Local Government Board or by the Board of Trade. The operation is generally a very expensive one, and gentlemen are sent down who know nothing about the value of the land in the district which they are to value. We want some one practically acquainted with the neighbourhood. I can assure the Committee that there is a serious expense incurred when these gentlemen are sent down from London, and I sincerely hope that the matter will be left to the local surveyors.

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN

Perhaps I may be allowed to say that, having had considerable experience in matters of this kind, the Board of Trade surveyors are frequently preferred. When I was at the Office of the Local Government Board, applications were made to me from time to time that a person unacquainted with the district should be sent down, because he would be likely to be more impartial.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny S.)

I propose to add, after the word "accordingly," in line 23— But no compensation shall be awarded under this Act in respect of compulsion or for injury done or alleged to be done to the land compulsorily purchased. The latter part of the Amendment contains a technical definition from the Land Act of 1845, in which power is given to award damages in the case of what is called severance, which amount to 5 per cent. Now the practice has arisen of awarding 10 per cent to an unwilling landlord. My object is that this custom of giving 10 per cent to a foolish or unreasonable landlord, and 5 per cent by reason of the severance, should be done away with.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,

After "accordingly," in line 23, insert "but no compensation shall be awarded under this Act in respect of compulsion or for injury done or alleged to be done to the land compulsorily purchased."—(Mr. Chance.)

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

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

When the subject arose the other night I said that, in my opinion, the ordinary rule with regard to compensation should prevail in these cases. The hon. Member says there is some scale or standard of 5 per cent for compensation for severance. But there is nothing of the kind. In all cases of compensation it has to be proved by evidence that the land is damaged or injured. It is perfectly well known that there would be in some cases positive injustice in not allowing compensation for severance. There would be a strong objection on the part of the Government to the instruction being given which is contained in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. Now, with regard to compulsory sale, for the reasons I shall put before the Committee, we must adhere to to the rule we have laid down. The present rule that rests on our recognized custom is this, that the market value is to be obtained—that is to say, the market value at the time the land is sold——

MR. CHANCE(interrupting) (Kilkenny, S.)

I withdraw my Amendment in, order that we may discuss the question, of compulsion alone.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

I would suggest that we should agree to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and then, report Progress, in order that the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing) may bring forward his Amendment as to compulsory purchase at the beginning of the next Sitting.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

As the next Amendment stands in my name, I would venture to add a word in the same sense as the observations which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). I accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board down to the end of Subsection C. It simply carries out the object of the Amendment I had upon the Paper, which you, Sir, ruled out of Order here, the object of which was to substitute the procedure of the Artizans Dwellings Acts—the more economical arrangements provided under those Acts—for the procedure under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

I rise to Order. What is the Question before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question is, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN

Of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

Yes.

MR. CHANNING

When interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, I was saying that I was quite certain that on this side of the House the principle now suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be accepted as a great improvement on the original procedure suggested by the Government. We accept this procedure. Speaking for myself, I am quite willing to go on with ray my own Amendment; but I think that it will lead to protracted discussion, and it really raises such an important issue that I would add my own appeal to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford that this is a convenient point at which to adjourn the discussion.

MR. RITCHIE

I hope we shall be allowed to go on with the Bill. No doubt, the 10 per cent addition to the cost of purchase, which we have to discuss, is of great importance; but I would point out that the arguments, one way and the other, are very simple, and may be put very shortly. I believe the Committee is desirous of proceeding as far as possible with the Bill to-night. The Session is rapidly coming to a close; and it is evident, if we do not push forward as fast as we can, and make great progress, it will not be possible for the measure to pass into law this Session. Instead of arguing whether or not we should proceed, the time would be much better employed in taking the discussion itself.

MR. CHANCE

I observe that the Amendment gives arbitrary power to disallow the costs of any witness who may have been called unnecessarily; but I am in doubt whether that will be sufficient to cover persons unwilling to sell voluntarily, and to compel them to pay the whole costs of the arbitration. I would ask whether it is intended to compel the landlord, who is responsible for costs being increased under these circumstances, to pay the whole of those costs?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

This point will not be left to the arbitrator. All that the arbitrator will have to deal with will be with the land which will have to be bought and sold; I have nothing to do with the question of the conduct of the person by whom it is sold. It is nothing to me whether they act reasonably or unreasonably.

MR. CHANCE

I would point out that there may be an unreasonable refusal on the part of the landowner to part with his land before the compulsory power comes into force at all. If there is such an unreasonable refusal, and compulsory power comes into force, I want to make sure that the Local Authority shall not be compelled to pay costs which his unreasonable conduct has involved.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

That matter must be dealt with by the Authority dealing with the Provisional Order.

MR. RITCHIE

Might I suggest that the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing) should now move his Amendment?

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

It would be competent for the hon. Member for East Northampton to move his Amendment as a subsequent Amendment after this Amendment is agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

Certainly, That course could be taken if the hon. Member consents.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

I now move that you, Sir, report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. In doing so, I wish to say that I think an Amendment of this importance ought not to be taken at this hour of the morning (10 minutes to 3 o'clock). I have supported the Government on a great number of their Amendments throughout the Bill, and I think I have some right to a voice in the matter of the adjournment of the discussion. I decline, for my part, to go into these Amendments which are to follow at this hour of the night.

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

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

I do not know what the decision of the Government will be; but I suppose, under our present Rules, they really have no alternative but to consent to reporting Progress, if that course is insisted upon by any number of Members on this side of the House. If that is the course which is to be pursued, I hope that, at all events, it will be observed that the great majority of the Committee, including all the Members on the other side, and many hon. Members who take a great interest in this question on this side of the House, are prepared to go on with the Bill. We admit that it is inconvenient—personally inconvenient to us—to take a discussion of this kind so late at night, after we have already been in the House for a considerable time; but, looking at the period of the Session and to the chances of this important Bill, we are willing to make this sacrifice, and those hon. Gentlemen who are unwilling to make it must, of course, accept the full responsibility of their action. In case the Government should determine to yield to the pressure put upon them, by those hon. Members who say they are anxious that this Bill should pass, and that they are doing their best to enable it to pass, I should like the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to make some statement as to the future progress of the measure. If the Bill is not to be proceeded with, -we should be made acquainted with that decision of the Government as soon as possible, in order that we need not give attendance and exercise our minds with regard to a measure the fate of which is a foregone conclusion. If, on the other hand, Her Majesty's Government are determined that this measure shall receive the final decision of this House, then I think we have arrived at such a period of the Session that some definite statement of the kind I suggest ought to be made by the Government.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I hope that even yet the right hon. Member for Central Bradford will consent to forego this Motion, more especially as the opinion of the hon. Gentleman in whose name the next Amendment stands is that we should go on. I hope the Government will make it clear that, under all circumstances, however the measure may be opposed by any limited number of Gentlemen in any part of the House, they will carry the Bill before the Session concludes.

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

I have no hesitation in responding to the appeal made to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chamberlain). I think that we should mark the course which has been pursued to-night at all events by a Division, in order that we may find upon the Division List who it is that is obstructing this Bill. There is no doubt that if hon. Members desire the postponement, and resolve to oppose the further progress of the Bill this evening, they can do so. They can stop its further progress as far as this Sitting is concerned; but I wish it to be distinctly understood that no efforts will be spared on the part of the Government to pass the Bill this Session. We will be no party to a Prorogation until this Bill is passed. Whatever facilities our past experience in this House have shown as expedients for us to adopt in order to make progress, we shall certainly in the future apply. I do not think it necessary to say further than that on this occasion—to say more than that we shall lose no opportunity of forwarding this Bill, and that it is our intention of ultimately passing it into law.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

It is true that I some time ago expressed my willingness to go on with the Amendment; but after what has passed, seeing that it is the evident desire of many hon. Members to discuss this question in the only adequate way it can be discussed, at a proper hour of the night, I should be exceedingly ill-advised if I were not to support the Motion of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). I may add that I am heartily glad to have heard the announcement which has been at last elicited from the Leader of the House—the pledge that we shall have this question settled during the present Session of Parliament. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh; but I shall say what I have to say. Those whom I represent are deeply interested in this question; and we shall not only insist that this measure shall be passed, but that it shall be passed, as far as our powers will enable us to pass it, with those principles adopted, and those Amendments added to it, which will render it a useful and workable measure, and a boon to the people of this country.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

I am quite willing to take upon myself the responsibility of stopping the Committee on the Bill at this point. It is unreasonable to ask us to proceed further at this time of the morning. I must repudiate the imputation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham just now, and made a few nights ago against Members on this side of the House. I can speak with more independence on this subject, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have supported the Government on almost every Amendment made in this House. I think that on only one important amendment I have voted against them. Though I disagree in many important matters with many hon. Gentlemen around me, yet we have now arrived at a point of great importance, and to a matter which ought to be discussed, as it affects vitally the interests of men we represent outside this House; and I think, therefore, the suggestion now made is a most reasonable one. There is every desire on this side of the House that the measure should pass into law. I am perfectly ready to stay up in London another couple of days—[An hon. MEMBER: No; weeks]—in order that this Bill may be carried. If the Government is not prepared to give these two days to the discussion of the Bill, then I think the country will perfectly well understand that the reason the Bill is not carried is that too much of the Session has been wasted in the passing of Coercion Acts, that there has been no time to devote to the necessities of the agricultural labourers.

MR. RITCHIE

The right hon. Gentleman talks about stopping up in London for a couple of days. I have no doubt, from his point of view, he endures a great deal of hardship, and makes a great deal of sacrifice; but I would point out that there is a great deal of Business which this House must transact before it can prorogue. It is not a question of a couple of days; but with the exigencies of Supply, and other matters which the House has to discuss before it can separate, it is essential that if the Bill is to pass into law we should make rapid progress with it while we have time. I would point out that, no doubt, what the right hon. Gentleman has saidistrue—nacnoly, that the Amendment which comes next is very important; but I would point out that the question of compulsory purchase is a question which has been discussed again and again during the progress of this Bill. ["No, no!"] I beg pardon, the question of value has been discussed again and again. But, whether that is so or not, whatever can be said for or against the Amendment can be said within half-an-hour, and I do hope that the Committee will devote at least another half-hour to this Bill, and endeavour to settle this particular question which, I admit, is an important one, but which does not require very much discussion.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

It is evident the great majority of this Committee are anxious to proceed with the Bill; therefore I think that, for that reason alone, we might appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give way to the general wish of hon. Members, particularly as the fate of the Bill depends upon the progress now made. We have been two nights debating this Bill, and have not finished yet three clauses. We have been two hours to-night debating one Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Ashburton Division of Devonshire (Mr. Seale-Hayne); and I think, seeing that the Committee is in good working order and anxious to make substantial progress with the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) ought to defer to the general wish of Members and finish the consideration of this clause, especially as, as has been pointed out incidentally, this clause has been discussed on and off ever since the Bill has been before the House.

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

It has been stated that if the Bill is not proceeded with now, there is a chance of its being lost. There is no chance of its being lost, because the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) has pledged us his word that it shall be carried. I regret very much indeed that; the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) should have taken this mode of introducing matters into which I am not going to enter myself. I regret all the more that this remark should have induced the First Lord of the Treasury to forget the undertaking he gave to the House earlier in the evening. It will be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill should be taken for a couple of hours to-night. We have now been debating it for upwards of two hours and a-half, and I certainly think it is most unreasonable we should be asked to go further.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 136: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 422.) [3.5 A.M.]

MR. CHAINING (Northampton, E.)

I now beg to move that— The price to be paid for land acquired by compulsory purchase under this Act shall be such a sum as shall, in the opinion of such arbitrator, be the fair market value of such land, without any addition being made for compulsory purchase. I propose to add this as the 4th subsection of the Amendment which has been adopted by the Committee on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board; and I will do so, in consideration of the convenience of the Committee, in as brief a form as possible. I must say, however, that considering the very great importance that has been attached to the subject by many Members of this House who have gone thoroughly into it, and have expressed their opinions upon it as an essential point of this Bill—perhaps the most essential point of this Bill—it really seems to me unreasonable that we should be called upon to discuss such a very vital question at this hour (3.15) of the morning. If the feeling of the Committee is that we should proceed, I wish to say that I heartily welcome the alteration of procedure proposed by the President of the Local Government Board, because it carries out exactly what I have had in my mind, and is practically the same on principle as the Amendment which I laid on the Table of the House some four or live hours before the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) announced his own proposal—namely, the assimilation of the procedure of this Bill. [Interruption.] I hope hon. Gentlemen will do me the kindness to listen to my remarks without interruption, especially as they have insisted upon proceeding with this discussion at this unreasonable hour. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman carries out my own views, and assimilates the general procedure of this Act to the general procedure of the Artizans' Dwellings Acts. Let me remind the Legal Representatives of the Government of the wording of the Act of 1879—the Artizans' Dwellings Act, 1879, amending the Artizans' Dwellings Act, 1868—the 7th clause of which Act distinctly introduces the principle that there shall be no addition for compulsory purchase. The Act of 1882 carries that principle one step further, for it prohibits the arbitrator, appointed by the Local Government Board in the same way I suggested, going into all the circumstances which might increase and add to the expense of the compulsory purchase of land. I therefore wish to point out that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has adopted the principle of the Artizans' Dwellings Acts, and I ask him to adopt those principles in their entirety, and not to treat the agricultural labourers and those who wish to obtain land under this Act in a different spirit from that in which the town population has been treated under the Artizans' Dwellings Acts. It seems to me quite essential that we should adopt some such Amendment as I have suggested. There are many illustrations to be obtained from the most important evidence which has been laid before the House and the country on this subject in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1885, which sat on the housing of the working classes; and I refer hon. Members who may not have examined that Report as fully as I have had an opportunity of doing to some parts of the Report which show the absolute necessity of importing into this Act the principle of my Amendment. Dr. Downes, of Chelmsford, says that the arbitration price of land always enormously expands as soon as it is known that the land is wanted for sanitary purposes. This gentleman further instanced before the Royal Commission the case of a quarter of an acre of salt marsh land in Essex, for which the Sanitary Authority had to pay no less than £244, besides their solicitor's costs. The price alone paid to the owner was £172. On being questioned as to the actual market value of this land, Dr. Downes stated that the market value did not amount to more than £20. I ask the Government, or the majority of the Committee, if they are really in earnest in wishing to enable Local Authorities to buy land without paying for it such an excessive price that they cannot let it without loss to the rates? Dr. Downes was of opinion that where land had clearly no other value, so far as one can judge, but an agricultural value, the price paid should be no more than such agricultural value. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) has dealt with this question very fully; he has dealt with it very fully in the somewhat interesting episode before the Royal Commission. On the Commission there was a sort of duel between the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and Lord Salisbury, who presided over the Commission at that time, in which Lord Salisbury tried to press upon the right hon. Gentleman his principle of compulsory purchase, and in which the right hon. Gentleman maintained successfully his own principle that nothing extra should be paid for compulsory purchase. The right hon. Gentleman went into his own experiences with regard to the town of Birmingham, and he showed that, even with regard to those districts where they were permitted to apply the procedure of the Artizans' Dwellings Act, the loss was exceedingly heavy; but that if the procedure of the Artizans' Dwellings Act had not been invoked the loss would have been still heavier. I sincerely hope, in dealing with this Amendment, that I have shown some ground why the Government should yield to my proposal. It seems to me only reasonable, when you consider that all you want to secure is that a certain number of humble men should add to their income, to the small comforts of their home, and elevate themselves and their children in the way that they can by labour of this kind, that you should really make your Bill a genuine Bill, and enable the Local Authorities to buy land at a reasonable price, at a fair market value, and not saddle the Local Authority with all these fancy values that the practice of arbitration has added, mainly, as is well known, in order to meet the unreasonable fears and prejudices that were raised upon the introduction of the great railway schemes of 40 years ago. These rules of arbitration are largely due to the jealousy of landowners of the railway system. On the 11th of January last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in a remarkable speech of special moment, pointed out that the country was saddled with £2,000,000 a-year by the introduction of this principle in regard to railways only. If the Government really intend the agricultural labourers and the artizans to have allotments at a reasonable agricultural rent, a rent which would let the allotment tenant live and thrive, I ask how they are to carry that out unless they enable the Local Authorities to buy at a reasonable price? It is monstrous to allow extra values to be imported into the consideration of the purchase. I feel quite sure that in this Amendment I shall have the hearty support of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. I can hardly imagine that he can refuse to give his support to a proposal carrying out his own principle, to which he attached such vital importance in the speech to which I have referred, and in which he said a good many hard things of the Tory Party for finding fault with him for asserting that Local Authorities should be able to buy land at a reasonable price without fanciful additions on account of compulsory purchase. I should like to know why any landowner should get any more than he would obtain if his land was let to an agricultural tenant? If he let it to allotment holders, he would have to add to the rent, the rates, and tithes, and this would be fair and just. But in this case, when giving up his land to the Local Authority, that he should have additional values paid over to him over and above the actual market value of his land seems to me perfectly monstrous and absurd. But the main point on which I rest my Amendment is this—that if you do not adopt a principle of this kind, you would be acting inconsistently with the principle adopted in the Bill, and render it absolutely nugatory and futile for the purposes intended—namely, to provide labourers with land at an agricultural rent. I would remind the President of the Local Government Board that he himself said, on the second reading, that one of the principles of this Bill was that labourers and artizans should get the land at an agricultural value. I do not believe that is stated in the Bill, and I think that is one of the points where we want further definition; but, however that may be, if he is really in earnest, I do invite him to have the fairness and consistency to adopt my Amendment, and make this Bill a real and a valuable one.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words—"(d.) The price to be paid for land acquired by compulsory purchase under this Act shall be such a sum as shall, in the opinion of such arbitrator, be the fair market value of such lands, without any addition being made for compulsory purchase."—(Mr. Channing.)

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

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

I shall not follow the hon. Member in the somewhat lengthy disquisition he has given; but if he imagines that the terms he demands are corresponding to the Artizans' Dwellings Act he is under a mistake. He has given us a long disquisition as to the price and value of land for railway purposes. There was no necessity for that, because land is now valued at market value; and if no direction were given at all, it would be taken at the fair market value at the time it is taken. The allowance of 10 per cent, or whatever amount be given, for compulsory sale arose in this way. The Act says nothing about allowance for compulsory sale. It is perfectly well known that it was a development of the system of valuation. You may have land that is valuable on account of its growing into accommodation land, or for building purposes, and those who first had to form an estimate under the words "full and fair compensation" decided that an allowance to cover contingencies should be given, and accordingly the custom of giving 10 per cent was introduced until it now prevailed. It is perfectly true, though not in any Statute, that it has been recognized in Courts of Law and by the Legislature on several occasions. It is important to remember that everyone with land bought compulsorily has had the compensation assessed on the same basis as land compulsorily taken for gas works and water works, which are not in the same category. There is one exception made, and that was made in connection with the Artizans' Dwellings Act, which was for the purpose of providing dwellings for the poor. In respect of healthy properties, compensation was given for compulsory sale, but not in respect of unhealthy properties. What I submit to the Committee is this—that if there is to be any alteration in the law, it should be by some general enactment that would apply in all matters where land is taken compulsorily. I submit there is no reason why, when land is bought compulsorily, that either standard of compensation shall be fixed, and we have nothing to do with the fancy values the hon. Gentleman has referred to. The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was directed to the fancy values for land taken for railway purposes. [Mr. CHANNING: That was in January, 1886.] No one can suggest, with respect to agricultural land, any such question has been raised, and I therefore simply say that, with regard to market value, there is no dispute and no necessity for the Amendment; and, with regard to the present value, no charge is necessary, or, if there is, it should be made by a general enactment.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I beg to move that you do leave the Chair.

THIS CHAIRMAN

Probably the hon. Member would be content with moving to report Progress?

MR. CONYBEARE

Yes, Mr. Courtney; I will move that you report Progress.

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

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Bill will be reprinted as far as it has gone?

MR. RITCHIE

I hope the Committee will not consent to report Progress. I think the Committee is competent to come to a decision, and I hope they will be prepared to dispose of this Amendment. With reference to the reprint of the Bill, I would point out that, so far as we have gone, there is not much Amendment in the Bill, except the insertion of this provision, which I hope the Committee will assent to, and I hope, in any case, the Committee will not consent to report Progress.

MR. CONYBEARE

I think it is one more flagrant instance of the way in which the Government break faith. We were distinctly promised we should not work more than two hours. We have now been working three hours, and we could not dispose of the Amendments in two or throe more hours. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen who enjoy themselves on their moors and in their yachts—["Oh, oh!"]—they certainly have not been here, and I take my stand upon the declaration made by the Leader of the House, and I maintain at this hour of the morning, when we have to resume to-morrow, and are sitting six and not five days a-week, it is unheard of and monstrous to ask hon. Gentlemen to go on.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

There is no breach of faith whatever on the part of the Government; it is entirely in the imagination of the hon. Member. The hon. Member asked the Committee to consent to sit for two hours, but there was nothing said about not desiring to sit for more than two hours; and, under those circumstances, and after the Division we have just had, which showed that three-fourths of the Committee desired to proceed, why should the hon. Member object to go on? I have had the honour of a seat in this House for a good many years; but I never remember such a course to be pursued as that adopted by the hon. Member. He has contributed nothing to the information of the Committee, and if he would accept my advice he would go home, and allow us to proceed with the Bill.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

I do hope the Government will consent to report Progress. ["No !"] I do not think I have unduly occupied the attention of the Committee; but this is a question of very great importance, which we should like to speak upon. Our constituents desire to know what is our opinion on this subject, which they cannot do when the discus- sion is taken at this time in the morning, as what we say is not reported. I think that is a very legitimate reason for asking the Committee to consent to report Progress.

The Committee proceeded to a Division, and the Chairman stated that he thought the Noes had it; and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and fifteen Members only having stood up, the Chairman declared the Noes had it.

Original Question again proposed.

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

I claim to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 28: Majority 101.—(Div. List, No. 423.) [3.40 A.M.]

Original Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 118: Majority 77.—(Div. List, No. 424.) [3.50. A.M.]

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

As the Committee shows it does not wish for any further discussion, I will simply move the next Amendment in my name. The words will, I think, explain the object.

Amendment proposed, as an addition to Mr. Ritchie's Amendment (Clause 3, page 2, line 32), add— (d.) If the compensation ordered to be paid to any vendor under any arbitration under this section shall not exceed an amount which the sanitary authority shall, before the appointment of the arbitrator, have offered in writing to the vendor, he shall pay all costs, fees, charges, and expenses of every description relating to such arbitration; (e.) The arbitrator shall, in case of difference, decide the amount of costs, fees, charges, and expenses to be allowed in respect of the arbitrator, or any matter arising thereon, and in no case shall any fee or expenses be allowed to more than one surveyor or witness as to value on the part of the sanitary authority and vendor respectively."—(Mr. Cobb.)

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

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

I am afraid that the Government cannot assent to this Amendment.

R. CONYBEARE Cornwall, Camborne)

It seems to me that this is a very practical Amendment indeed, and I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman opposite objects to it. I suppose the real explanation is that hon. Members opposite object to everything, and they do not want to discuss this Bill. I can quite understand that probably at this hour in the morning they are not in a condition to discuss it, and under these circumstances, Mr. Courtney, it is perfectly absurd to attempt to go on with anything like serious legislation at this hour.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

Speak for yourself.

MR. CONYBEARE

Well, I am speaking for myself; I usually do. Under these circumstances, I claim to move that the whole clause be now put.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not in Order in making such a Motion.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

The last Motion was a Closure Motion, and therefore this Motion would be consequential.

THE CHAIRMAN

No.

MR. CHANCE

After a Motion to report Progress has been closured and negatived, the whole clause has been put. That was done several times while the Coercion Bill was before the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

Just so; but in the interval another Motion was made that certain words be inserted, therefore this is not consequential.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

I think some hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on this side of the House are taking a mistaken course in regard to Amendments to this Bill. I think it is their duty to press the Amendments on the Government, and to call upon the Government to reject them if they deem it wise to do so. This will expose the conduct of hon. Members who insist on discussions taking place at an hour in the morning when it is impossible that adequate discussion should take place. I therefore propose to move that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again. So far as I am concerned hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway may or may not support me; but I do not in- tend to sit here any longer to support any Amendment which is not seriously intended and is not to be seriously discussed. What is the good of taking part in a sham? I do not see any good in it, and if they do not see any good in supporting or voting for them it would be far better to let the whole Bill pass without further discussion. Here we have hon. Gentlemen who assume to be the friends of the labourers supporting Motions which practically smother discussion.

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

MR. RITCHIE

The Amendments to Clause 3 not yet dealt with are, with the exception of the one now before the House, of a very trifling character. I therefore hope the hon. and learned Member will not press his Motion for reporting Progress. The Government will consent to progress being reported after Clause 3 has been disposed of, and it ought to take but very few minutes to do that, as some of the Amendments are out of Order, and some relate to very small matters.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

I think the Committee having gone so far as they have done might as well finish the clause. I think it is a little unreasonable to expect us to go on with the discussion; but after the way in which the last Amendment was carried, it is only right further discussion should take place, and an opportunity for that will occur on the Report stage. The remaining Amendments to the clause are altogether unimportant, so I hope we will dispose of them, and then adjourn. For my part, I do not intend to stay any longer.

MR. T. M. HEALY

After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, I will ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)

I am exceedingly sorry that my hon. and learned Friend proposes to withdraw his Motion. It is a scandal for us to be here taking part in the solemn farce of pretending to discuss important Amendments to a Bill at 4 o'clock in the morning without the slightest idea of the decisions arrived at upon them being influenced by either argument or common sense. If this goes on, the only value attaching to this Bill will be that of waste paper. It seems to me that it is only an electioneering dodge, and not a single allotment is likely to be given in accordance with its provisions. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway should do one of two things: they should either fight this clause in a bonâ fide manner, or let the Government pass the Bill as they passed the Coercion Bill.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 133: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 425.) [3.55 A.M.]

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line line 34, after "Act," insert "together with any Act confirming a Provisional Order under this section."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to move an Amendment without telling the Committee what it is about.

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

It is merely a formal Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill) pointed out that, in his opinion, these words were necessary to make the clause clear. On examination we find there is a good deal to be said for the view he takes, so we move the Amendment, in order to secure that the Bill shall not come to an end in the way he fears.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

The object of the Amendment I am about to move is to leave out a lot of surplus words which really have no purpose there. I apprehend that no Sanitary Authority will require to take a park, garden, or pleasure ground, and if the words I propose to leave out are omitted, I think the clause, as amended, will provide ample protection for the landlord.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 40, to leave out from "the following," to "have regard," in page 3, line 4, both inclusive, and insert "regard shall be had."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)

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

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

We cannot possibly accept this Amendment. If the words are left out there will be no protection of any kind against parks and pleasure grounds being taken. It is necessary that some provision should be inserted.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, as I am exceedingly anxious that the Government should consider favourably an Amendment which stands in my name to extend Sub-section A, so as to include existing allotments.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has hardly stated with his usual fairness the result of the Amendment. Under these words all re-sonable rights of a landowner would be safeguarded. We have heard a great deal from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) about the danger of tying the hands of a Sanitary Authority; but now when it comes to the question of giving some reasonable power to that authority, I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will go into the Lobby against it. I submit that there may be eases in which land will be alleged to be park, garden, or pleasure grounds, when it is really only agricultural land, and unless you accept this Amendment the Local Authority will be precluded from taking such ground for allotment. If the clause is allowed to stand as at present in the Bill, it will merely afford an ingenious and simpler method whereby landowners can get out of any operation of the Act; they can plant a few shrubs or sticks in the ground, and say it is a garden, knowing the great elasticity in which the Courts in Ireland interpret such words as "home farm." I am afraid they will only afford a landlord an escape from doing what he ought.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

I can hardly think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seale-Hayne) is serious in putting down such an Amendment as this. The only purpose it can serve is to continue a discussion that we all know is useless; for everyone knows they would not give power to interfere with parks and pleasure gardens. There is no earthly use for such an Amendment, except to take up the time of the Committee.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

I think it might frequently be necessary to take a portion of a farm, and I must therefore insist upon it.

MR. CONYBEARE

We all know there are plenty of parks that extend for mile upon mile in this country, and what does any man want with some hundreds or thousands of acres round his house, except to be selfish enough to hide himself from the gaze of his neighbours? I know of some great parks where you have miles and miles of drive up to the house, and it is absurd to say in all these cases the necessity might not arise for taking an out of the way corner which would not injure the park, and might be most important to the district. There is Chatsworth, for instance, where there is almost a village standing in the middle of the park, and if it was necessary that a portion of that should be taken, I see no reason why it should not be done. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will be pressed to a Division.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

I appeal to my hon. Friend (Mr. Seale Hayne) not to press this Amendment. What we want is agricultural land at an agricultural price, and we do not want to interfere with parks and pleasure grounds.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

I will not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

I wish to move the Amendment standing in my name—namely, to insert the words "or meadow land," and I do so because I think it most important to farmers.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 43, after the words "pleasure ground" to insert the words "or meadow land." —(Mr. Jeffreys.)

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

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

I hope the hon. Member will defer his Amend- ment until the Report, because I am not quite sure whether the exact words he proposes will meet the case he wishes to bring before the Committee.

MR. JEFFREYS

I will postpone my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I will also defer my Amendment in the same place, in order to meet the convenience of the Committee.

MR. MAC INNES (Northumberland, Hexham)

The Amendment in my name proposes to deal with land owned by Railway Companies, which has not yet been brought into use, and I hope the Government will accept it.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 2, after "dwelling-house," insert "or any land the property of a Railway Company which is, or may be, required for the purposes of their undertaking."—(Mr. Mac Innes.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

I think it is a very reasonable Amendment.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I think it would be better if it ran in this form—"or any land already compulsorily acquired by any Public Company for their undertaking." That would apply to other Companies than Railway Companies, and you may require to take land from gas works and water works.

THE CHAIRMAN

Will the hon. Member (Mr. Mac Innes) put it in that form?

MR. MACINNES

The suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Chance) comes upon me suddenly; but, so far as I can consider it off-hand, it appears to be reasonable.

MR. RITCHIE

I think the words suggested by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny might be accepted, and we would consider the question between now and Report, and if necessary alter them upon Report.

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

The words of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny are not so satisfactory as the words of the original proposal, which applies to the land required by a Railway Company for their undertaking; but the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny includes all land in the same category.

MR. CHANCE

I would propose, then, merely to add "Railway, Gas, or Water Company."

MR. RITCHIE

It would be better if the hon. Member will allow us to accept the Amendment as it stands on the Paper, and then it can be altered on Report if necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I hope the Committee will consent to accept the small addition I propose by my Amendment to the clause. I think it most desirable that existing allotments should be excluded from the compulsory powers of the Act. This is a point on which some of my own constituents feel strongly.

Amendment proposed,

In page 3, line 2, after "house," insert "or any labourers' allotments or allotment gardens, whether attached to, or detached from cottages, or any places of worship or education, or any churchyard or burial ground."—(Mr. Channing.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

I cannot conceive any demand to purchase any churchyard or burial ground, and therefore I think the proposal is quite unnecessary. It is quite possible labourers may have allotments that may be of too high a rent, and it might be necessary for the local authority to apply for power to take the land at a smaller amount.

MR. CHANCE

They would have to do that on the basis of excessive rent.

MR. RITCHIE

No doubt. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHANCE

I think it would be very desirable to allow leases to be made for a term not exceeding 35 years, as 21 years is rather a short period. I therefore move that.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, to leave out the words "twenty-one," in order to insert the words "thirty-five."—(Mr. Chance.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'twenty-one' stand part of the Clause."

MR. RITCHIE

I think that 21 years is sufficiently long, and it is a term much better known in this country than that of 35 years, which is quite an unknown quantity for a lease in this country. Twenty-one years is a term that is generally understood.

MR. CHANCE

All I can say is, that legislation in this instance is proceeding backwards. The whole tendency of modern land legislation is to increase the power of the limited owner. I think it is unreasonable to ask people to erect a little dwelling or greenhouse upon land, the term for which will run out in 21 years, and I believe it would prevent the tenants improving the place. In face of the Settled Land Acts, I say that 35 years is not an unknown or unreasonable term at law. I must press the Amendment, which only asks for a small concession, though it is a real one, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should object to it.

MR. CHAPLIN

I am quite certain the hon. Member would find they would be ready to make any of these improvements on a lease of 21 years.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

If this Amendment is pressed to a Division I shall support it. In the neighbourhood of towns allotments will be largely taken by the better class of labourers, for the purposes of growing fruit and glass culture, and 35 years lease is not unreasonable. It is a small concession, and if you cannot give the 35 make it 28.

MR. CONYBEARE

I am opposed to any limitation of the kind, and I cannot understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to tie down the hands of contracting parties by putting in these words. Why should not the parties be perfectly free to make their own arrangements in point of time as well as in respect of other conditions? It is totally foreign to sound legislation.

MR. RITCHIE

As it is only an enabling clause, I will accept the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'thirty-five' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed,

In page 3, at end, insert the following sub-section:—"The county or any other authority shall not acquire any right to minerals, nor prejudice the rights to minerals, under such lands."—(Mr. Ainslie.)

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

MR. CONYBEARE

I think it would be most undesirable to add those words, and lay down a principle of this kind. As it is, the reservation of mines and minerals by written title is a curse and a burden to the industry of this country; and if there was any excuse by which we could invest is the community at large the rights wrongly taken from the people, we ought certainly to avail ourselves of it. I shall certainly oppose this Amendment, because I consider if you are giving the community a right to the compulsory acquisition of land, everything beneath the land should go along with the surface. That is the principle which landowners themselves act upon, and they would never think of taking the surface without the minerals, or of depriving themselves of the minerals; and therefore I say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In this case, there is every reason why the community should have the benefit of the minerals.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

The hon. Member's constituents will be very much surprised at the views of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. CONYBEARE

No, they will not.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

Then they will not have any chance of obtaining allotments, if they have to pay the price of minerals under them; and I am surprised that the hon. Member should make any such ridiculous and insincere remarks.

MR. CHANCE

On this occasion I find myself in unexampled accordance with the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham; but I do not think the Amendment goes far enough, as it does not prescribe that the full value shall not be paid; and I would move to add to the Amendment the words, "nor shall compensation be paid by them in respect thereof."

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

That would not be the right way to introduce it; it should be done by a Definition Clause, that the land should not include the minerals. It would be ridiculous to buy the minerals when they would have no power to get them; but we will consider the matter between this and Report.

MR. CONYBEARE

If it should be found that, when the allotments had been taken, there were minerals under them, why should the community he deprived of the benefit of them, and allow a landlord who had sold the land without knowing anything of the minerals, to have the advantage of them? I shall certainly press the matter.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

It has been decided in Courts of Law that minerals include all substances under the soil, and that there is no such thing as land without minerals; therefore, the Reservation Clause would have to be general.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. RITCHIE

I beg now, Sir, to propose that you do report Progress; and upon this question I would say the Government propose to take the Bill again on Saturday, when they rely upon the Committee to render them all the assistance in their power to complete the Bill on that day.

MR. CONYBEARE

When is it proposed to take the Mines Regulation Bill again?

MR. RITCHIE

I am unable to speak as to that; but I will communicate with the First Lord of the Treasury as to the course of Business, and due Notice will be given.

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

MR. COBB

I wish to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that, as we are at this point, we may as well finish the Bill. We have already been more than double the time we ought to have been, and it would be better now to finish it.

MR. RITCHIE

The hon. Gentleman has not made that suggestion seriously?

MR. COBB

I did.

MR. RITCHIE

He must know that I could not meet him, and that we are under an engagement to report Progress directly Clause 3 was completed; and, therefore, it is necessary we should report Progress.

MR. CHANNING

The statement of the right hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. The First Lord of the Treasury said we were to go on for two hours in Committee. Then the right hon. Gen- tleman said the Government wished to go on till they reached a controversial point, and then, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) moved to report Progress, it was agreed, after that Motion, to go on until my Amendment was disposed of. I shall take some opportunity of pointing out to the country the action of the Government in dealing with this Bill and that the most important Amendment to-night has been closured by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and that he was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), although the matter under discussion was just that principle to which he had attached formerely such importance.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

Will the Saturday Sitting be subject to the Wednesday Rule?

MR. RITCHIE

I apprehend that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is under an engagement to apply the Wednesday Rule.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

After our experience of last Saturday, I do not see the use of Members coming down here to do nothing.

MR. COBB

I shall come down perfectly prepared to finish the Bill, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to let us have whatever Amendments he has now to propose by tomorrow morning.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I beg to give Notice that I shall oppose any Motion to apply the Wednesday Rule to the Sitting of Saturday next.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Saturday.

House adjourned at a quarter before Five o'clock in the morning.