LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS BILL.— [BILL 329.]

HC Deb 05 September 1887 vol 320 cc1271-326

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

CONSIDERATION.

Bill, as amended, considered.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

On the Question that this Bill be now considered, can I now speak as to the application of this Bill to Ireland?

MR. SPEAKER

No. There is no Question before the House.

COLONEL NOLAN

Is there not the Question before the House that this Bill be now considered?

MR. SPEAKER

No.

Clause (Election of allotment managers)—

1. "(1.) Where allotments have been provided under this Act for a parish in any rural district, a petition to the sanitary authority may be presented by a number of the electors of allotment managers in such parish, not being less than one-sixth of the whole number of such electors, praying for the election of allotment managers in such parish, and thereupon the sanitary authority shall order such election, and the allotment managers so elected shall be the allotment managers of the allotments in such parish, in lieu of allotment managers appointed by the sanitary authority, who, on an election under this Act, shall cease to hold office.
2. "(2.) The first election shall he held on such day as may, subject to the regulations hereafter mentioned, be fixed by the said authority.
3. "(3.) The number of allotment managers in each cause shall he such (not being less than three nor more than five) as the sanitary authority may fix, and the quorum shall be three, or, if the number of managers is less than five, be two.
4. "(4.) The allotment managers shall retire triennially on such day as may be prescribed by the regulations hereinafter mentioned, and the allotment managers first elected shall retire on the day for retirement which occurs next after the expiration of three years after the day fixed for their election.
1272
5. "(5.) Any casual vacancy among the allotment managers which occurs by death, resignation, disqualification, or otherwise, may, if there remains a quorum of allotment managers, be filled up by such managers; but the person elected to fill the vacancy shall hold office only for the same time as the vacating manager would have done.
6. "(6.) If, at any time, by reason of a failure of election, either by electors or allotment managers, or of any other cause, there is no allotment manager, or no quorum of allotment managers in any parish, the sanitary authority shall appoint allotment managers under this Act in that parish, and shall continue to appoint the same until another petition for the election of allotment managers is presented under this section.
7. "(7.) The electors of allotment managers shall be the parliamentary electors in the parish, that is to say, the persons registered in any list of parliamentary electors for the parish as entitled to vote at an election of a Member to serve in Parliament, and an elector shall not give more than one vote for any candidate nor vote for more candidates than the number to be elected.
8. "(8.) The election of allotment managers shall be held at such time, and in such manner, and in accordance with such regulations as the Local Government Board may from time to time by order prescribe; and the Local Government Board may make regulations respecting the duties of the returning officer, and the expenses of the election, and may do and make regulations respecting all such things as appear to them necessary or proper for carrying into effect this section, whether preliminary or incidental to such election, and for applying to such election any enactments respecting offences at the election of guardians, and may revoke or alter any previous order under this section; Provided as follows: —
1. "(a.) Such guardian, churchwarden, or overseer of the parish, or other person as the sanitary authority may appoint, shall be the returning officer;
2. "(b.) A poll, if demanded, shall be taken by ballot, and the said regulations shall provide for the application to such poll of 'The Ballot Act, 1872,' including the provisions for punishing offences;
3. "(c.) The poll shall be held on one day only, and shall close at eight o'clock in the evening, and shall be open for at least the period from five to eight o'clock in the evening;
4. "(d.) The returning officer shall not vote except in the case of an equality of votes between any candidates, in which case he shall have a casting vote;
5. "(e.) Any ballot boxes, instruments, fittings, and compartments provided by any public authority for parliamentary, municipal, or school board elections, or belonging to any public authority for the purpose of elections, shall be lent to the returning officer on his request for the purpose of an election of allotment managers, under such conditions and either free of charge or for such reasonable charge as may be prescribed by regulations under this section;
1273
6. "(f.) The returning officer may use free of charge for the purpose of an election under this section any room in a school receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament, and any room the expense of maintaining which is payable out of any rate in the parish, but he shall make good any damage done to the room, and defray any expense incurred by the person or body of persons, corporate or unincorporate, having control over the room, on account of its being so used.
9. "(9.) An election under this section shall not be questioned except in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under this section, and the regulations may apply to such election any enactments respecting the questioning of an election of guardians.
10. "(10.) If an allotment manager is punished with imprisonment for any crime, or is adjudged a bankrupt, or outers into a composition or arrangement with his creditors, or ceases to reside in, or in the neighbourhood of, the parish, or absents himself for twelve months from all meetings of the allotment managers, except for temporary illness or other cause, to be approved by such managers, or is a tenant of any allotment under the management of the managers, he shall cease to be an allotment manager, and his office shall be vacant, and a person who, if elected, would by virtue of this enactment cease, otherwise than by reason of absence from meetings, to be a manager, shall not be qualified to be elected a manager, but, save as aforesaid, any retiring manager shall lie eligible for re-election,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)

—brought up, and read a first and second time.

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

I have put down the following Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's New Clause: —To leave out Sub-section (1) of the Clause, and insert the words— In every parish in any rural district in which this Act is put in force allotment managers shall be elected at a meeting of the vestry, which, for that purpose, shall be summoned by the overseers for half-past seven o'clock in the evening. Sir, I move this Amendment because I think it will dispose, in a shorter way, of many other Amendments on the Paper. The object of it is to amend the 1st sub-section of the right hon. Gentleman's clause. I am sure many of us on this side of the House are deeply obliged to him for having placed the election of allotment managers on a much more satisfactory basis. But this 1st sub-section provides that, in order that the allotment managers may be elected in a parish, a petition shall be presented by a certain proportion of the electors of the allotment managers, who are afterwards defined to be the Parliamentary electors on the register, praying for an election of allotment managers for that parish. The Amendment which I have to propose, and which, as I have already said, will, I think, dispose of a number of other Amendments on the Paper, raises three points. First of all, I think the Bill should itself establish the allotment managers. I do not like this system of a certain proportion of the electors in a parish having to go praying for this and for that. I do not like the system of petitioning. I would prefer that the Bill should confer what the people claim to be entitled to as a right. The three objects I have in this Amendment are, first of all, that the Bill should establish this power of electing managers; and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that the Bill, as originally drawn, did so; for Clause 5, Sub-section 3, in the original Bill, provided that the Local Authority "might''—which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman said the other night would be interpreted "would"—appoint allotment managers. That required no petition from the electors; but they would be appointed by the Sanitary Authority. It is now proposed that the allotment managers should be elected by popular election. That, I think, is very much better; but, in order to have popular election, it is necessary to have some nomination, and I cannot see anything in any of the sub-sections of this New Clause which makes any such provision. I do not think that is altogether satisfactory. I think, if we are to have a popularly-elected body, the nomination ought to be at some public meeting of the electorate, and I have chosen, in my Amendment, the Vestry. I am not, however, very particular about that. I chose the Vestry because it included the ratepayers of the parish. In discussing this question you must remember, with regard to registers and other matters, that this clause applies only to parishes in rural districts, and therefore in very few cases will there be a large number of electors. Consequently, the question arises, who shall be the electors? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board proposes that the electors should be the Parliamentary electors on the Register. That is to some extent—I do not mean entirely—inconsistent with the amended Bill, as we have passed it, because in Clause 2 of the amended Bill it speaks not only of the electors, but also of the ratepayers, and I think it is very important that the ratepayers should have an opportunity of nominating and electing the allotment managers. If the ratepayers are not to have a voice in the matter, it follows that women will have no voice in the election; and as I presume that the right hon. Gentleman intends that women shall be eligible to be allotment, holders, he would not wish them to be excluded not only from electing allotment managers, but from being elected themselves, if those electing should think it well to do so. The difficulty as to the register would be very small. I am aware that the register of the ratepayers is made out in a different way from the Parliamentary register, and there would be some difficulty at first in combining the two registers; but with such a small register as it would be in a rural parish, surely that would be very trifling, and might very well be met without causing any very great inconvenience. Now, Sir, I am not going to enlarge upon this point, because I am very anxious to get the Bill passed; but there is one other point in my Amendment which I think a very important one, and which is thought a great deal of in agricultural districts; and that is, if the Government will consent to have a meeting of the ratepayers in order to nominate the allotment managers—because it is quite clear that if only a sufficient number are nominated, there will be no need for any election at all—it is very necessary indeed that such a meeting should be held at such an hour as will place it in the power of all the ratepayers to attend. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must know that it is a very common custom—I am afraid it is almost a universal custom—for Vestries to be called when it is almost impossible for the working classes to attend; and I am sure there is not a Member representing an agricultural constituency who cannot confirm this. The objects of the Amendment which I propose are, first, to provide means of nominating the allotment managers—and I believe the holding of a public meeting would be the most suitable, because, if only a sufficient number are nominated, it will save an election; secondly, to have the electors, the ratepayers, as well as the Parliamentary electors; and, thirdly, to have the meeting at which the nomination and, perhaps, the election takes place at such an hour that all the ratepayers could attend. I have put it at half-past 7 o'clock in the evening, which I think is as convenient an hour as can be named for the meeting to be held. I say no more, but move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment proposed, To leave out Sub-section (1) of the Clause, and insert the words—"In every parish in any rural district in which this Act is put in force allotment managers shall be elected at a meeting of the vestry, which for that purpose shall he summoned by the overseers for half-past seven o'clock in the evening."— (Mr. Cobb.)

Question proposed, That the words '(1) Whore allotments have been provided under this Act for a parish in any rural district a petition to the sanitary authority may be presented by a number of the electors of allotment managers in such parish,' stand part of the Clause.

MR. RITCHIE

There are several points to which the hon. Gentleman has aluded, and I will take them one by one. He first of all objects to any requisition or petition on the part of the inhabitants as to the election of allotment managers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we originally provided that the allotment wardens should be nominated by the Sanitary Authority; but there seemed to be a disposition on the part of certain hon. Gentlemen who take a great interest in this matter to think that there should be opportunity given to elect if it were desired that the wardens should be elected. As we ourselves had not any strong objection — or, indeed, any at all—to that proposal, we inserted words in this Amendment of mine, providing that where it was desired by a certain proportion of the inhabitants that the allotment managers should be elected, there should be an election, instead of the managers being nominated by the Sanitary Authority. The hon. Gentleman objects to a requisition; but I would point out to him that this machinery as to elections is a machinery which is likely to be of a somewhat expensive character, and it may well be that in some parishes the inhabitants may have perfect confidence that the Sanitary Authority will nominate managers who will be acceptable to the general body of the community. I say it "may" be so, and the hon. Gentleman must remember this as well— that we are living in hopes that we shall have in rural constituencies a different local representative body to that which now exists; and it may very well be, when that body is set up, that it will not be desired—I hope that will be the case—to have any election of this kind at all. In case, however, there should be in any of these parishes any feeling among the inhabitants that they would rather have the allotment wardens elected than nominated by the Sanitary Authority, we have provided that a very small number of the electors—one-sixth — shall be able to call for an election of the allotment wardens, and we think that is the smallest number that ought to be at liberty to put a parish to the very considerable expense which will undoubtedly be involved in the election of allotment wardens, however it may be done. Then the hon. Gentleman says there is no power of nomination provided for, and that there is no meeting of the ratepayers provided for at which the nomination could take place. But I would point out that this is only one of the many arrangements which will have to be made by the Local Government Board for carrying out the election; and that it would be their duty, amongst other things, in the regulations they will make for conducting the election, to lay down rules that will secure that nomination shall take place at a public meeting of the inhabitants. We have not attempted to put down in this Amendment of mine all the various pieces of the machinery which the Local Government Board will have to provide for. It is perfectly well known that there are portions of the machinery of election which will have to be laid down in rules by the Local Government Board, and the hon. Gentleman need not feel the least alarm, for, of course, a public meeting for the nomination will be provided for by the rules which the Local Government Board will lay down. Then the hon. Gentleman, in his Amendment, fixes an hour for the holding of the meeting. He will see that in my Amendment we provide that the election must be open for at least a period of three hours.

MR. COBB

That is to be done in the Bill.

MR. RITCHIE

Surely, that provision being made, the hon. Gentleman need not be afraid that the Local Government Board will not equally provide for the time of the meeting being held. Then, the hon. Gentleman asks, who are to be the electors—the Parliamentary electors or the ratepayers? I say at once, we do not place the slightest stress upon whether they are the Parliamentary electors or the ratepayers. We selected the Parliamentary electors solely for convenience and for cheapness. But there is this material difference between Parliamentary electors and the ratepayers— that we have the machinery ready to our hands in the case of the Parliamentary electors. We have the electoral roll— the register. The hon. Gentleman will see that if we take the rate-book it will be necessary to cut it up into alphabetical order, and as there will be several polling places, you will have to do that for several polling places, while all youhave to do in the case of the Parliamentary register is to provide yourselves with two or three copies of it. It is purely a matter of convenience. The hon. Gentleman says the Parliamentary register would exclude women; but, on the other hand, if he takes the rate book he will exclude a very important number of electors—he would exclude lodgers—

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

And service voters.

MR. RITCHIE

Yes; and service voters. I venture to say the Parliamentary register will be much more inclusive than the rate-book. I have explained that it is for purely a matter of convenience and cheapness that we take the register of Parliamentary voters.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

I venture to suggest to the House a course which may, perhaps, save some time. So many Amendments have been put on the Paper that it is impossible, within the limited time allowed to us at the end of the Session, to consider them so as to do justice to them. The Bill is a piece of bad draftsmanship, misconception of facts, and such an utter mass of rubbish, that we had better save our time and pass it as it is. It will, at any rate, serve to pad the lean cover of our Statute volume of this Session, and may exist then as a monument of claptrap legislation and of incompetency.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board whether I rightly understood him to say he would undertake that the nomination of these allot- ment managers would be made at a public meeting, and that such meeting would take place at an hour which was convenient?

MR. RITCHIE

Certainly.

SIR WALTER FOSTER

If that is the case, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Cobb) will withdraw his Amendment.

MR. COBB

I will withdraw the Amendment,

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CAPTAIN COTTON (Cheshire, Wirral)

I rise to suggest, in the proposed now clause of the Government, that for "one-sixth" of the electors "one-third" should be substituted, because I think a sixth of the whole number would be a very small fraction to set the expensive machinery in motion for the election of three allotment managers. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has himself alluded to expensive machinery, and I would suggest to him that "one-third" of the electors would be a more adequate proportion for the purpose of setting that machinery in motion. I beg to move, in line 4 of the proposed new clause, to leave out the words "one-sixth," in order to insert "one-third."

Amendment proposed to the Clause, in line 4, to leave out the words "one-sixth," in order to insert the words "one-third."—(Captain Cotton.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

I think there is a great deal of force in what has been stated by my hon. and gallant Friend; but, at the same time, I feel compelled to adhere to the Bill as it stands.

Question, "That the words 'one-sixth" stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

In the Amendment I am about to move I say— Where such number of electors is less than two hundred, or in any other case by at least thirty such electors; but I shall be glad to accept any other suitable number which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board may suggest. The point I desire to enforce is simply this— the number of those who are interested in allotments and in the appointment of managers may be relatively a small proportion. Some of the parishes affected by this Bill will have a very large number of electors. In small parishes a sixth is very fair; but in very large parishes, even that proportion might be an obstacle.

Amendment proposed to the Clause, In line 4, after the word "number," to insert the words "where such number of electors is less than two hundred, or in any other case by at least thirty such electors."—(Mr. Chinning.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

I am sorry to be compelled to decline this Amendment. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see the difficulty it would raise, and I trust the Amendment will not be pressed.

MR. CHANNING

I do not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COBB

The object of the Amendments I have on the Paper, and which come next, is that the number of the managers should be fixed, not by the Sanitary Authority, but by the regulations of the Local Government Board; but if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has any objection to them I will withdraw them.

MR. RITCHIE

I have.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

My Amendment relates to the election of allotment managers, and I propose, in line 32 of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board's clause, after the words "shall be," to insert these words —"the ratepayers and." I cannot conceive on what possible principle the Parliamentary electors are to be made the electors of the allotment managers, and one of the results of the clause as it stands would be to introduce into elections of allotment managers a decidedly political element. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government say that he laid no stress on the question as long as the electing body were the ratepayers. Nevertheless, he said, he preferred the Parliamentary electors, because that was the more convenient arrangement. Surely, he must have forgotten that all our Local Boards, Town Councils, and so forth, are, at the present time, elected by the ratepayers, and in this particular case I hold that the ratepayers are the proper persons to elect the managers, because they are in the first instance responsible for the loans that must be obtained for the purchase of the allotment lands. Then, I say that the ratepayers are a larger and more comprehensive body than the Parliamentary electors. They include woman, and I think that as they are responsible for the money required, they ought to have a voice in the election of those who will manipulate the expenditure. I should be glad to see both ratepayers and Parliamentary electors included; but if we must have one or the other, I should prefer the ratepayers.

Amendment proposed to the Clause, in line 32, after the words "shall be," to insert the words "the ratepayers and." —(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

Allow me to point out that the Committee have already decided, on the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Rugby Division of Warwick (Mr. Cobb), that the electors are not to be the ratepayers. The hon. Member's Amendment was to leave out Sub-section 1, for the purpose of inserting the words— In every parish in any rural district in which this Act is put in force allotment managers shall be elected at a meeting of the Vestry, which for that purpose shall he summoned by the overseers for half-past seven o'clock in the evening. Of course, a meeting of the Vestry means a meeting of the ratepayers, and that Amendment was not assented to. What is proposed to be done by this Amendment would add tenfold to the difficulty, because the hon. Member has said he would like to make the constituency both the Parliamentary electors and the ratepayers. Therefore, you would not only require the Parliamentary register of electors, but also the rate-book, and the difficulty which would thus be created is the reason why the Government object to the Amendment.

MR. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)

The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board seems to be under a mistake. The Amend- ment of the hon. Member for the Rugby Division of Warwick was withdrawn, and not negatived; and therefore, I take it, that the hon. Member for the Ashburton Division of Devon is in Order in moving this Amendment. I sincerely trust that my hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division, because I certainly hold that the ratepayers are the proper authority in such a matter, and that it would be improper to exclude from the election of allotment managers women who are ratepayers. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to add the Parliamentary electors, it will be quite open for him to do so, and probably there would be no objection to that proposal. It would be a retrograde step if in these elections we were to go back to the principle which withheld the local franchise from women. I very strongly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

I cannot concur in this Amendment, because I think it would unnecessarily complicate the question under discussion. As the Amendment stands, it would read "The ratepayers and the Parliamentary electors," and that would be the cause of so much confusion and unnecessary expense in the elections under the Bill that I am quite certain no one with any knowledge of these matters would desire to occasion. On the other hand, if we were to give the election to the ratepayers only, the Amendment would have an exclusive action, because it would leave out all the lodgers and those who in Parliamentary elections possess the service franchise.

MR. ROUND (Essex, N.E., Harwich)

I should hesitate to support the Amendment, because in the agricultural districts it would practically exclude the larger portion of the labourers.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. COBB

I do not propose to move the whole of the Amendments I have put on the Paper, but I propose to move the one which applies to Sub-section 8, and is intended to leave out the words ''such guardian, churchwarden, or overseer," and insert the words "one of the overseers." It seems to me that it would not be a proper thing for the Sanitary Authority to have a member of their body a Returning Officer, nor would it be well to have a churchwarden as Returning Officer.

Amendment proposed to the Clause, in Sub-section (8), line 48, to leave out the words "such guardian, churchwarden, or overseer," in order to insert the words "one of the overseers."—(Mr. Cobb.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

I assure the Committee that the only reason the Government have had in putting in this subsection was to give the Sanitary Authority some scope or choice in case it were found that one or other of the office holders might not be suitable for the position. I can very readily conceive that neither of the overseers in certain rural parishes might be persons fitted for the onerous and delicate duties they would have to discharge under this Bill, and to settle the various points which might arise. It is quite conceivable that neither one nor the other might be fit for the office. The hon. Member says "one of the overseers." Who is to decide as to which of the overseers should be appointed? As it stands, the clause provides that the Sanitary Authority should have a choice. Surely it would be the object of the Sanitary Authority to appoint persons thoroughly fit for the work. It would seem, however, to be the idea of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobb) that the authority might have a desire to choose someone who would act in a manner contrary to the spirit of the clause. If he objects to the churchwarden being appointed, I have not the slightest objection to strike the churchwarden out, supposing that will meet his view.

MR. COBB

That would be satisfactory.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HARRY T. DAVENPORT (Staffordshire, Leek)

I want to call attention to a point which I think comes before the next Amendment on the Paper. The sub-section gives the Returning Officer power as to the use of elementary schools for election purposes. The Amendment I would propose is— That the election shall be carried on a day and at such a time as will not interfere with the ordinary work of the school. I would suggest that the day should be Saturday.

MR. RITCHIE

I should propose to meet the suggestion by inserting, after the word "may," in line 67, Sub-section 8, the words "except during ordinary school hours."

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not see that that suggestion would work very satisfactorily.

MR. RITCHIE

If you put in the words I suggest, you might have the whole of Saturday afternoon.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I hope the Committee will allow the clause to remain as it is and not alter it in that way. As proposed it might necessitate a holiday for the children, and that we do not object to.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I am afraid the poll would occupy a considerable time, and I do not see how it is to take place in the school-room without detriment to the school.

MR. RITCHIE

I would point out that provision is made in the Bill that the polls are to be taken between 5 o'clock and 8 o'clock in the evening; and looking at the fact that the school work is generally over at 5 o'clock, there would be no interference with the ordinary school hours.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I think the difficulty might be got over by inserting the words "when not required for school purposes."

Amendments made.

Clause, as amended, added.

MR. RITCHIE

When the Bill was in Committee, the Government struck out the clause which excluded Ireland from its operation, on the understanding that they would further consider whether they might meet the desire expressed to extend the measure to Ireland. The Government have very anxiously considered this matter, and they have come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to extend the Bill to Ireland. I would point out that Ireland is already in possession of not only one or two or three Acts in connection with the provision of allotments for labourers in that country, but that she possesses no fewer than four such Acts. The machinery of those Acts is, it is true, different from the machinery contained in this Bill; but in so far as it is different, it has been expressly altered by an amended Act of 1883. The first Act was in 1882, and in that it was enacted that where a Provisional Order was made it should be confirmed by Parliament. It was found, however, that that provision worked so badly that in 1883 it was necessary to pass another measure, by which the Parliamentary confirmation was removed, and the matter was left to the Privy Council of Ireland. That Bill, in fact, goes in many respects even further than the present measure. It provides not only for allotments, but also for the building of cottages; and not only that, but for taking allotments compulsorily by lease. Thus the House will see that in many respects that Act goes beyond the provisions of the existing Bill. We therefore find that on this occasion Ireland does not seem to stand in want of further legislation in the matter, the last Act passed for Ireland having been passed in 1886. Beyond this, I may say that we have been discussing this Bill throughout as if it were not to apply to Ireland. It is true that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) raised the question on the Committee stage of the Bill, but there was no intimation on the part of his Colleagues that they shared his desire to extend the Bill to Ireland. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that an hon. Friend of his —the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance)—-took considerable part in the discussion of this Bill in Committee, without ever raising the question of applying the method to Ireland, and I remember that when he was discussing the matter he was challenged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) on the ground that he was discussing a measure that did not apply to Ireland. It is plain, therefore, that if he wished it to apply to Ireland, he would, under those circumstances, have said so; but he never said a word to lead the House to such a conclusion. We are now, consequently, in this position, that having discussed this Bill in the belief it was not to apply to Ireland, we are now asked, after the Committee stage is over, to re-open the question and apply the complicated provisions of this measure to Ireland, without having considered that proposal in Committee. I think the House would have a just ground of complaint against Her Ma- jesty's Government, if now, at the last stage of this measure, we should attempt to do that which we never previously intended to do, and which the hon. Members representing Ireland never themselves asked for. Well, then there is the question of time. It is perfectly evident that if this Bill is to apply to Ireland, it will take a long series of Amendments to adapt it to the condition of things there; and at this period of the Session to discuss this altogether new question, and carry through the numerous Amendments necessary, means the occupation of so much time that it would practically defeat the Bill altogether. Having considered all these matters, and seeing that Ireland is supplied with an Allotments Act for herself, it is quite impossible at this late stage to attempt to apply this Bill to Ireland. I will go the length of saying that if there are any of the provisions of this Bill that hon. Members would desire to apply to Ireland, it seems to me the proper mode would be to proceed by amendment of the Irish Acts, not by amending this Bill. The Government are willing to consider any recommendations from Irish Members. Between this and next Session they will consider any representations with a view to seeing if they could be met by amendment of existing Acts.

Clause (Extent of Act,)—(Mr. Ritchie,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

The right hon. Gentleman has made some singular remarks. I expected him, when he said the Bill as it stood would not apply to Ireland, that he would point out some clause that would not apply. I think only a few verbal Amendments are required. He says the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) and myself sat silent while he made Amendments not applicable to Ireland, and other Members did the same. Well, that was an act of self-sacrifice, and showed how complaisant we were in the matter, willing to take any Amendments the right hon. Gentleman introduced. He made one important omission in pointing out how many Irish acts we have—he was wrong, I think, in mentioning the last as 1886. I think it was 1885.

MR. RITCHIE

No; 1886.

COLONEL NOLAN

Well, I will not contradict that. But -when he pointed out the Acts that applied to Ireland, his argument would have been much more convincing to me if, instead of allowing there were four Acts, he had shown there were 40,000 allotments existing under those Acts. That would have been an excellent argument; but he did not 8how that, nor could he, because they are not numerous. There are none in my part of the country. There are some houses with land to them, but I contemplate a totally different condition of things. I contemplate artizans in towns as well as labourers in the country getting small quantities of land without the necessity of building new houses. True, under one of our Acts there is power to give half-an-acre of land; but this power has been in operation to a trifling extent only. I do not myself know any case in which it has been put into effect, though I dare say it has been put into effect, though to a very small extent. There are several reasons for this. On the point of machinery I do not profess to be an excellent judge, but having heard the machinery of the Labourers' Act discussed in Ireland, I am able to form some opinion upon that. The reason I wish to see this Bill extended to Ireland is for the Grazing Clause—the power to acquire pasture land. That could easily be put in force in Ireland; the Board of Guardians would have nothing to do but take a field and allow a certain number of people to turn their cows or cattle on to it. Around the town of Loughrea, for instance, there are hundreds of acres of grazing land, coming up to the walls of the houses, and yet you will find the labourers there complain they cannot get the smallest bit of pasture land for a cow; and the same sort of thing exists in other towns. This alone would to me be a sufficient reason for rejecting this clause, by which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to exclude Ireland from this Bill. Again, it is a simple question of quantity; it is, as it were, the difference between sixpence and a shilling. Under the Irish Labourers' Allotments Act, Boards of Guardians or other bodies may let half-an-acre, and that is the limit; while this Bill allows one acre. Now, that is a considerable difference, and will be of so much greater advantage that people will go to the trouble of trying to obtain land by compulsory purchase, where they would not trouble to agitate, pay the law expenses, and other expenses, to get only half-an-acre. I can quite understand that townspeople would desire to get an acre of land. There are two reasons why I wish to see the Bill extended to Ireland. Again, the greater simplicity of the machinery to set the Bill in motion is a great advantage. To begin with, it is better to have only six people to put it in operation than 10. Altogether, it seems to me the machinery is simpler and less open to the objection of a contentious minority, such as you will always have on these bodies. It would save those appeals to the Privy Council which, in Ireland, are extremely expensive. The right hon. Gentleman says Irish Members wished to have the reference to the Privy Council; well, we may have made a mistake in imagining the Privy Council to be be better than it is. But there is no doubt the result in Ireland in many cases has been that people who have applied have had their applications rejected with costs quite sufficient to deter many others making a similar application. So the Labourers' Act is not put into operation on a large scale. In some of the Southern districts it is, perhaps, used; but in the West it is almost a dead letter. It is not because the people do not wish for it—they are anxious to get the allotment land—it is because the machinery h not available. The machinery of this Bill is much more available from its greater simplicity. Certainly it would provide a valuable alternative, and might prove a cheaper plan. Another point to which I attach great importance is being put into the same Allotments Act with England. Although I am a strong advocate for Home Rule, I think that when Englishmen make laws applicable to both England and Ireland, they are much more careful than when they apply an Act to Ireland only. That, of course, is only natural. With the Bill applied to both countries, we should be able to compare the results; and if our Local Authorities threw obstacles in the way of the operation of the Bill, we should be able to detect that by comparison with the proper working of the Act under English Local Authorities. Thus we should have a check on the action of Irish Local Authorities, which would facilitate the action of the Bill. An Allotment Act is useless unless it is actively employed. It is not an Act to remain on the Statute Book useful in an emergency, it must be put in operation; but the Labourers' Act in my country is used to a very small extent. Therefore, I think it would be a great advantage to extend this Bill to Ireland. Though I move to reject the whole clause, I will, if it is the desire of Scotch Members, restrict my action to Ireland, leaving Scotland outside the Bill. I am extremely sorry the question was not decided in Committee, when Irish Members, who are now scattered, were in attendance; still I think we ought to take a Division. The right hon. Gentleman holds out a promise that the subject shall be considered during the Recess; but between now and February many things may happen to thrust this matter aside—a General Election may occur, for instance, and there is an old adage that "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush." We have only an indefinite promise; and I hope the few Members we have will mark their sense of the neglect of Ireland in the Division.

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would have had something to say as regards Scotland. Every argument he has used for the exclusion of Ireland would apply in favour of including Scotland. It is a very important matter for a large number of my constituents, who are compelled to pay £6 or £8 an acre, to get a small portion of land for themselves. It would affect the cotter class, who are kept outside the Crofters' Act, and who have no land around their houses. There was evidence before the Crofter Commission showing the deterioration of children from the want of milk among the cotter class; and this land would supply pasturage. Fishermen also want small quantities of land badly; and the same may be said of the quarrymen, who, during parts of the year, work upon the land. Our demands are, at least, equal to those in England. I do not say this Bill is very valuable in itself; but it does contain a valuable principle, that will be extended by-and-bye. It will be urged that to apply the Bill to Scotland would take time; that it must be subjected to great modifications; but I think, on. examination, it will be found necessary to use a few Scotch terms in addition to English, and the Amendments in this direction need take but a short time.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I beg to move that this question be deferred. I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith)—Are there not two Scotch Bills on the Orders which will occupy some time? If it is agreed that these Bills are not to be taken tonight, then I will not press my Motion.

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

I trust that having regard to the period of the Session, hon. Members will not object to sitting a little later than usual, seeing also that a number of Members interested have waited for the discussion of this Bill. With regard to the Scotch Bills, I am told they will take but a very little time, and for these also I understand Members have waited. I do not wish to press my view unduly; but I rather think the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) will find himself in a minority of one among Scotch Members in his desire to postpone these Bills.

MR. SPEAKER

The Question is that this clause be read a second time. The hon. Member has not moved anything; he is not able to move that this Question be deferred.

MR. MASON (Lanark, Mid)

I trust the Government will insist on carrying the clause, and that there will be no opposition to it. I do not consider that this Bill is at all applicable to Scotland, and if only Irish Members will stand by us, I believe we shall be able to get a much better Bill for Ireland and Scotland. My reason for suggesting this to our Friends from Ireland is that, in my opinion, the Bill contains a very vicious principle, giving Local Authorities the power to acquire land. I believe we should be quite content with a Bill if you give us one on the principle of compelling reluctant and unwilling landlords to sell at a fair valuation, leaving the people to do all the rest. I am sure if we can get a Bill of that kind we can accomplish all that is required for Ireland and Scotland. I can quite sympathize with English Members who are anxious to have the Bill with this principle in it. I am quite satisfied if they are; but we do not want it for Scotland, and I hope the clause will be agreed to.

DR. TANNER (Cork, Co., Mid)

I support my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) who suggested the rejection of the clause. As there is a divergence of opinion amongst Scotch Members, perhaps it would be better to amend the clause by omitting the reference to Scotland.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member would not be in Order in moving an Amendment now. The question of reading the clause has to be first decided.

DR. TANNER

Very well, Sir. Then I rise rise for the purpose of supporting my hon. and gallant Friend. We have hoard a great deal about labourers in Ireland, though I am afraid they receive but small consideration. I do not say this Bill will be of great benefit to our people, but I will supplement my hon. Friend's proverb about a bird in hand, by saying half a loaf is better than no bread. I will not weary the House by tedious repetition of arguments my hon. and gallant Friend has adduced; I will only say that it would be a great point gained to have one acre instead of half-an-acre, it is somewhat nearer the original suggestion of three acres. Even minus the cow, this would be a very great thing for our Irish labourers. It is a difficult thing for them to get half-an acre now, and when they do get it it is more often land quite unsuitable for their purpose. There are points in the Bill that would prove of permanent advantage to us if the right hon. Gentleman will show a little of that charity which has been talked about. We have given proof that "the quality of mercy is not strained;" it droppeth from the Irish Benches on to the Treasury Bench, and if we have done them some service, surely they might, even though late, reciprocate the favours they have received and allow the extension of this Bill to Ireland, It would be doing something for the poorer people in a time of necessity and trouble. In any case it can do no harm, and in. process of time it may be accounted as something to the credit of the Conservative Party.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I think my hon. and gallant Friend has made out a conclusive case. I intend to support him, and I apprehend the same course will be followed by all the Irish Members present.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 117; Noes42: Majority 75.

AYES.
Addison, J. E. W.	Giles, A.
Agg-Gardner, J. T.	Gilliat, J. S.
Ambrose, W.	Godson, A. F.
Amherst, W. A. T.	Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.
Anstruther, H. T.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.
Baden-Powell, G. S.	Grimston, Viscount
Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.	Hall, C.
Barry, A. H. Smith-	Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.
Bates, Sir E.
Beach, W. W. B.	Hamilton, Col. C. E.
Boadel, W. J.	Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.
Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer	Herbert, hon. S.
	Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.
Bethell, Commander G. R.
	Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.
Bigwood, J.
Blundell, Col. H. B. H.	Hornby, W. H.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.	Hunt, F. S.
	Isaacs, L. H.
Bruce, Lord H.	Isaacson, F. W.
Burghley, Lord	Jackson, W. L.
Caldwell, J.	Jarvis, A. W.
Campbell, J. A.	Kenyon - Slaney, Col. W.
Carmarthen, Marq. Of
Clarke, Sir E. G.	Kimber, H.
Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.	King-Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.
Cooke, C. W. R.
Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.	Knowles, L.
Dalrymple, Sir C.	Lafone, A.
Davenport, H. T.	Laurie, Colonel R. P.
De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.	Lawrance, J. C.
	Lewisham, right hon. Viscount
De Worms, Baron H.
Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.	Long, W. H.
	Macdonald, rt. hon. J. H. A.
Egerton, hon. A. de T.
Elton, C. I.	Madden, D. H.
Evelyn, W. J.	Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.
Eyre, Colonel H.	Mason, S.
Fellowes, A. E.	Matthews, rt. hon. H.
Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.	Maxwell, Sir H. E.
	Mayne, Admiral R. C.
Finch, G. H.	Mills, hon. C. W.
Fisher, W. H.	Milvain, T.
Fitzgerald, R. U. P.	Mowbray, R. G. C.
Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.	Northcote, hon. H. S.
	Parker, hon. F.
Feteher, Sir H.	Pearce, Sir W.
Folkestone, right hon. Viscount	Pelly, Sir L.
	Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.
Forwood, A. B.
Fraser, General C. C.	Plunkett, hon. J. W.
Gedge, S.	Powell, F. S.
Gent-Davis, R.	Rasch, Major F. C.
Gibson, J. G.	Reed, H. B.

Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.	Tomlinson, W. E. M.
Robertson, J. P. B.	Vincent, C. E. H.
Robertson, W. T.	Watson, J.
Round, J.	Webster, Sir R. E.
Selwin-Ibbetson, rt. hon. Sir H. J.	Webster, R. G.
	Weymouth, Viscount
Selwyn, Capt. C. W.	Whitmore, C. A.
Sidebotham, J. W.	Wood, N.
Smith, rt. hon. W. H.	Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Stanhope, rt. hon. E.
Stephens, H. C.	TELLERS.
Temple, Sir R.	Douglas, A. Akers-
Theobald, J.	Walrond, Col. W. H.
Tollemache, H. J.

NOES.
Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)	Kenny, M. J.
	Lawson, Sir W.
Ballantine, W. H. W.	Lawson, H. L. W.
Biggar, J. G.	Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.
Burt, T.
Campbell, H.	M'Arthur, W. A.
Carew, J. L.	M'Laren, W. S. B.
Chamberlain, R.	Mulholland, H. L.
Channing, F. A.	Nolan, J.
Clancy, J. J.	O'Brien, P.
Cobb, H. P.	O'Kelly, J.
Collings, J.	Pickersgill, E. H.
Conway, M.	Quinn, T.
Conybeare, C. A. V.	Rowlands, J.
Cossham, H.	Sexton, T.
Deasy, J.	Stack, J.
Dillwyn, L. L.	Stewart, H.
Dimsdale, Baron R.	Tanner, C. K.
Finucane, J.	Tuite, J.
Flynn, J. C.	Winterbotham, A. B.
Fuller, G. P.
Hayne, C. Seale-	TELLERS.
Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-	Clark, Dr. G. B.
	Nolan, Colonel J. P.
Hunter, W. A.

Clause added.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

The House will recollect that in Committee on this Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) brought forward an Amendment, the object of which was to prevent the arbitrary awarding of the 10 per cent additional compensation in the event of land being taken compulsorily for the purpose of this Act. The Amendment came on for discussion at a very unfortunate hour, that is to say, at 4 o'clock in the morning, and when the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) had replied on behalf of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) moved the closure without waiting for any further discussion. I think this was somewhat unfortunate, but I do not propose on the present occasion to repeat in full the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton. I intend to move it in a somewhat restricted form, however, in order to meet the objections urged by the right hon. and learned Attorney General in Committee. The hon. and learned Attorney General stated very correctly that the practice of giving 10 per cent additional compensation for land taken compulsorily is universal, except in the single case of land under the Artizans' Dwellings Act, and he pointed out that, under that measure, if a landowner neglects his property in a manner that requires the intervention of the Act, the arbitrator should not award any additional compensation. What I now propose is to apply that principle to this Bill. It appears to me that if a landowner refuses or neglects to let land to his labourers for allotments, or declines to let the land to the Local Authorities for that purpose, and it becomes necessary to have resort to the compulsory powers, it is not right or fair that the man should receive the additional 10 per cent, compensation. The effect of giving him such additional compensation would be to enable him to screw a higher rent out of the Local Authority, and therefore out of the allotment holders, or else it would enable him to compel the Local Authority to put the compulsory powers of the Act in force, and to incur all the expenses attending a compulsory purchase. What I propose is to insert after Clause 3 the following clause:— The arbitrator appointed under Clause 3 of this Act, in awarding compensation to any owner of land for land taken for the purposes of this Act, shall not give any allowance in respect of compulsory purchase thereof, if it is proved to his satisfaction that the persons for whom the land is required for allotments, or the greater number thereof, are employed as labourers upon land belonging to such owner. This appears to me to be a sound principle to act upon. It is, as I have pointed out, in accordance with the principle laid down in the Artizans' Dwellings Act, and is a proposal which, I think, ought to be adopted in this Bill. It may be said that the clause so restricted will have a somewhat limited application, but that is not so, because the House will know that the great majority of parishes in this country belong to a single landowner. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, hon. Members deny that. I have taken some pains at various times to investigate the statistics on that point, and I am very confident that half the parishes either belong to single owners or are rated to single owners. [Cries of "More ! "] Some say more than half. At all events, it is certain that some 10,000 persons own between them three-fourths of all the agricultural land in England and Wales, and as there are only 12,000 rural parishes it seems probably that I am right in what I have said, and that the majority of the parishes either belong to single owners, or that many of them belong to one owner, and therefore I say that the clause would not have a limited application. It will only apply to the landowner who has refused to give to the labourers employed on his property proper garden allotments, or has refused to lease the land to the Local Authorities at a reasonable rent. In such cases, and in such cases only, I propose that the additional 10 per cent, compensation shall not be awarded by the arbitrator.

Clause (Additional compensation for compulsory purchase not to be awarded in certain cases,)—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

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

Mr. Speaker, for some of the reasons I urged on a previous occasion, I am obliged to say that the Government cannot accept this clause. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that he has not very carefully studied the operation of his own clause. He proposes that a sort of penalty should be imposed in one particular case—that is to say, where the persons for whom the land is required for allotments, or the greater number of them are employed as labourers upon land belonging to the owner. The right hon. Gentleman seems entirely to have forgotten that, even assuming the accuracy of the somewhat astonishing statement that the great majority of parishes are owned by single persons, in nearly all of them the land would be let to farmers. He does not mean to say that of the 10,000 owners who own parishes every one of them farm their own land. If not, his suggestion amounts to this— that if the farmer, who, under ordinary circumstances, does provide his labourers with allotments, does not do so in a particular instance, the owner is to be the sufferer. I say that, as a rule, the labourers who are employed by farmers have allotments provided for them. But what is frequently the case? Labourers are not perpetually employed on the same farm, and numbers of them frequently move about. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by this clause that owners are to be deprived of the additional compensation if they do not provide allotments for labourers who are only employed for a few months? It must also be remembered that circumstances may arise in which the owner is not himself able to provide the land in the way that the Act provides, and the compulsory powers have to be put in force. All this is disregarded by the right hon. Gentleman. There is one practical objection to the clause to which I should like to allude. It is proposed to raise an issue which is entirely foreign to the functions of the arbitrator who has to settle the award—namely, whether it can be satisfactorily proved that the persons for whom the land is required for allotments or the greater number of them are employed as labourers on land belonging to the particular owner. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered what would be the practical results of such an inquiry taking place? They would be that a considerable amount of evidence would be taken and very considerable discussion would arise. The whole thing would be entirely foreign to the functions that even have to be performed by the arbitrator who has to assess compensation. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to no one case in support of his proposal, and I ask the House not to agree to the clause.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

I quite agree with the principle contained in the Amendment, and, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford goes to a Division, I think I shall be obliged to vote with him. At the same time, I must point out that the difficulties of putting a provision of this kind in force would be very great. In some villages there might be part of the land taken from a man who would come under this clause, and part taken from someone who would not come under the clause. These labourers who occupy these allotments are a changing quantity. A man who to-day is settled on the land will in the course of a year or two years be in a different place altogether. That being so, I hope the right hon. Gentleman who has moved this clause will be content with having stated the principle, and will not go to a Division upon it. After all, it would only make a difference of 1s., or 1s. 6d., or 2s. per acre in the rent of the allotment; and, on the other hand, there would be great expense connected with the determining of the question involved. Therefore, although the principle is sound, the practical application would be difficult. We must bear in mind that what we have to do is to make this Act popular with the ratepayers and to all concerned, and that the more difficulties we place in the way of its operation the less likely are we to make it popular. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not go to a Division.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

Mr. Speaker, I hope, on the other hand, that the right hon. Gentleman will go to a Division. I do not believe that the landowners of the country—the Conservative landowners included—wish for this compensation clause, and I should like to hear from the other side of the House an expression of opinion, such as I have heard outside the House, to that effect. This matter was somewhat rushed through Committee, owing to the application of the closure, when we wanted to contend that it was the duty of the landowner to facilitate the provision of these allotments. I believe that a large number of landowners feel it to be their duty to do this, and are quite willing to do it. But I wish to point out that it is the unwilling landowner who is the man likely to take the greatest advantage of this compensation. The difficulty you would have in getting Boards of Guardians to carry out the provisions of the Act would be principally due to fear of loss to the ratepayers. That would be the great argument used against putting the measure in force. The occasional landowner has simply to hold aloof; to say —" I will not come to any terms with you; I require such and such an impossible rent; and you can only drive me at last to an impossible scale of compensation." He has only to take a course of this kind, and he will have the Sanitary Authority at his mercy. There will not be one Sanitary Authority out of 20 that will run the risk of purchasing under such conditions. I regret that the whole question was not thoroughly debated in Committee, and I shall certainly vote for the Amendment with the object of seeing how many hon. Gentlemen will support this 10 per cent extra value—[Cries of "No, no ! "]—this 10 per cent fine upon the labourer's allotment, this 10 per cent burden put upon the experiment which they say they are so anxious to pay, this 10 per cent addition to the value of the land. I hope my right hon. Friend will go to a Division.

MR. ISAACS (Newington, Walworth)

May I point out to the House how very inequitably this clause might be made to work if it were carried into law. Take the case of a Local Authority wishing to acquire 20 acres of land situated 10 acres on one side and 10 on the other side of a road. Such 20 acres to accommodate 13 labourers. If, with regard to the owner of the land on the right hand side of the road, it could be proved that the labourers were anxious for allotments, and that seven out of the 13 were employed by him, the owner could be made to part with his land without obtaining any additional compensation. If, however, on the left hand side of the road there were only six out of the 13 labourers to be provided with allotments, the owner would receive the additional 10 per cent. The labourers employed on the land are always a varying number, and consequently this clause would be a most inconvenient one to work. I think, also, it would be most inequitable in its application, and I hope that the House— seeing that the clause is one which will give rise to a large amount of injustice and heart-burning—will reject it.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

This, Sir, is not the first time in the course of the debates on this Bill that we have heard of injustice to the landowner. I do not think, however, that anyone on the opposite side of the House has spoken of the injustice to the labourers, which has been going on for many generations, and to which we are anxious to put an end. I think that the marginal note to this clause, instead of being "Additional compensation for compulsory purchase not to be awarded in certain cases," ought to be made to read "Additional compensation for compulsory purchase not to be awarded in any case." That would certainly be more just to the labourers. The clause, moreover, strikes at the principle against which we protested at the beginning of the discussion of this Bill—namely, the principle which allows land to be acquired at a price over and above its market value as between a willing seller and a willing buyer. I think that the clause ought also to be supported on another ground. The very person whom we want, above all, to got at, is the landowner who is not doing his duty. You are actually putting a premium on his unwillingness to meet the views of the Local Authority, by saying that he shall receive 10 per cent compensation if the compulsory powers of the Act have to be resorted to. By this clause we take from him this premium on his obstinacy. On the ground that we ought to give the labourers a fair chance in this matter, I hope the House will support the clause.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

I believe I have no right of reply; but I wish to say that, in order to meet the objection of the hon. and learned Attorney General, I should be quite willing to put the word "usually" before the word "employed" near the end of my clause.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 109: Majority 70.

[2.15 A.M.]

AYES.
Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)	Kenny, M. J.
	Lawson, Sir W.
Ballantine, W. H. W.	Lawson, H. L. W.
Biggar, J. G.	M'Arthur, W. A.
Burt, T.	M'Laren, W. S. B.
Caldwell, J.	Nolan, J.
Campbell, H.	O'Brien, P.
Carew, J. L.	O'Kelly, J.
Chamberlain, K.	Pickersgill, E. H.
Channing, F. A.	Quinn, T.
Clancy, J. J.	Rowlands, J.
Clark, Dr. G. B.	Sexton, T.
Cobb, H. P.	Stack, J.
Collings, J.	Stewart, H.
Conway, M.	Tanner, C. K.
Conybeare, C. A. V.	Tollemache, H. J.
Cossham, H.	Tuite, J.
Dillwyn, L. L.
Finucane, J.	TELLERS.
Flynn, J. C.	Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.
Fuller, G. P.
Hayne, C. Seale-	Winterbotham, A. B.
Hunter, W. A.

NOES.
Addison, J. E. W.	Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.
Agg-Gardner, J. T.
Ambrose, W.	Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.
Amherst, W. A. T.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Hornby, W. H.
Baden-Powell, G. S.	Hunt, F. S.
Barry, A. H. Smith-	Isaacs, L. H.
Bates, Sir E.	Isaacson, F. W.
Beach, W. W. B.	Jackson, W. L.
Beadel, W. J.	Jarvis, A. W.
Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer	Kenyon - Slaney, Col. W.
Bethell, Commander G. R.	Kimber, H.
	King - Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.
Bigwood, J.
Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.	Knowles, L.
	Lafone, A.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.	Lawrance, J. C.
	Lewisham, right hon. Viscount
Bruce, Lord H.
Burghley, Lord	Long, W. H.
Campbell, J. A.	Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.
Carmarthen, Marq. of
Clarke, Sir E. G.	Marriott, right hon. W. T.
Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.
Cooke, C. W. R.	Matthews, rt. hon. H.
Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.	Maxwell, Sir H. E.
Dalrymple, Sir C.	Mayne, Adml. R. C.
Davenport, H. T.	Mills, hon. C. W.
De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.	Milvain, T.
De Worms, Baron H.	Mowbray, R. G. C.
Dimsdale, Baron R.	Northcote, hon. H. S.
Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.	Parker, hon. F.
	Pearce, Sir W.
Egerton, hon. A. de T.	Pelly, Sir L.
Elton, C. I.	Plunket, right hon. D. R.
Evelyn, W. J.
Eyre, Colonel H.	Plunkett, hon. J. W.
Fellowes, A. E.	Powell, F. S.
Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.	Rasch, Major F. C.
	Reed, H. B.
Finch, G. H.	Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.
Fisher, W. H.	Robertson, J. P. B.
Fitzgerald, R. U. P.	Selwin-Ibbetson, right hon. Sir H. J.
Fitz - Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.
	Selwyn, Captain C. W.
Fletcher, Sir H.	Sidebotham, J. W.
Folkestone, right hon. Viscount	Smith, right hon. W. H.
Forwood, A. B.	Stanhope, rt. hon. E.
Fraser, General C. O.	Stephens, H. C.
Gedge, S.	Temple, Sir R.
Gent-Davis, E.	Theobald, J.
Gibson, J. G.	Tomlinson, W. E. M.
Giles, A.	Vincent, C. E. H.
Gilliat, J. S.	Watson, J.
Godson, A. F.	Webster, Sir R. E.
Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.	Webster, R. G.
	Weymouth, Viscount
Goschen, rt. hn. G. J	Whitmore, C. A.
Grimston, Viscount	Wood, N.
Hall, C.	Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.
	TELLERS,
Hamilton, Col. C. E.	Douglas, A. Akers-
Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B	Walrond, Col. W. H.
Herbert, hon. S.

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

Sir, in the clause which stands in my name on the Paper with reference to minutes and accounts, the only difference between it and the clause which I see is now in the Bill is as to the publication of accounts. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman has left that out, but I move the clause formally in order that he may explain.

Clause (Minutes and accounts and register of allotments to be kept by sanitary authority, and to be open to inspection of ratepayers,)—(Mr. Cobb,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

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

I understand that the only question between the hon. Gentleman and the Government, is the question of the publication of the accounts. I do not like the proposal which the hon. Gentleman makes, as I think it would involve a good deal of trouble and a good deal of expense, but, if he is prepared to with draw his clause, I will move this one— And within one month after the 25th day of March in every year shall cause an annual statement showing their receipts and expenditure under this Act, in respect of the year ending on that day, and their liabilities outstanding on that day, to he deposited at some convenient place in the district, if urban, or the parish to which the statement relates, if the district is rural, and any ratepayer may, without fee, inspect and take copies of such statement.

MR. COBB

I withdraw my clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COBB

I now move a clause respecting the continuance of the Act, My object in putting it down was to get some expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, or rather some assurance from him that by the 31st of December 1889, at all events as far as the Government to which he belongs is concerned, we shall have some popularly elected authority substituted for the Boards of Guardians. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say at an early period of the debate, that there was no doubt that would be so under the Local Government Bill which he is about to introduce. If that be so, of course I will not press this clause. My only object in bringing it forward is to express the want of confidence there is in the Boards of Guardians of this country. But I believe I am right in understanding the right hon. Gentleman to say that by the Bill he is going to introduce next year, a popularly elected authority is to be substituted for the Boards of Guardians.

Clause (Continuance of Act,)—(Mr. Cobb,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

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

I have already said more than once that it is the intention of the Government, on the earliest possible day, to introduce a Bill dealing with Local Government, not only providing Local Government for counties, but also dealing with Boards of Guardians and other Local Authorities, which, I hope, will be placed on a more popular basis.

MR. COBB

I am willing to withdraw my Amendment. As to the next clause standing in my name dealing with the application of any surplus in the hands of a Rural Sanitary Authority, that raises a point of considerable importance, which the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, understands far better than I do. There is no doubt that if this Bill becomes law, in a certain number of years the land which has been purchased will be the property of the sanitary charge, and be free of debt—or, rather, it will be the property of each, parish. This land will have been paid for by the rents taken from those who hire the allotments; and the question very properly arises who is to be entitled to deal with those rents when they no longer have to be devoted to paying off the purchase money. The land will probably be paid for in a period of 30, 40, or 50 years; I think the right hon. Gentleman said that 30 years would be the time over which the loan would be extended. Now, when that has occurred, are the rents to be applied in reduction of the rates? I think that that would be a very vicious principle myself. Or shall the land be applied for the general benefit of the parish, according to the votes of the parishioners? If the right hon. Gentleman fails to give me a satisfactory answer to these questions, I shall be compelled to press the matter to a Division.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause (Application of any surplus in hands of rural Sanitary Authority,)— (Mr. Cobb,) — brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. RITCHIE

The hon. Gentleman, by this clause, is looking very far into the future. He is providing that a certain step shall be taken by a Sanitary Authority 50 years hence, as it is quite certain that such an authority will not be doing its duty if it does not borrow the money on a scale of repayment extending over as long a period as possible. That money can easily be borrowed for 50 years from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, while I have no doubt that from other sources it could be obtained for 60 years. Now, the hon. Gentleman wants the Committee to decide exactly what is to be done with a surplus accruing 50 or 60 years hence. He fixes by his clause a mode in which that decision is to be arrived at. I think he is going rather beyond the necessities of the case. We may fairly leave this matter to settle itself in the future.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

I can hardly understand an hon. Member, who believes in local self-government, desiring to tie the hands of a Local Authority in a matter like this. The object of those who believe in the principle of local self-government is to enlarge the powers of Local Authorities, especially as they are to be placed on a better representative footing. Hon. Members may smile, but if they had had the experience which my hon. Friend the Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derby (Sir Walter Foster) and myself have had, they would see the desirability of trying to give as large powers as possible to a Local Authority, instead of interfering with or curtailing them. This clause seeks to bind the hands of Local Authorities, not only for the present, but for all time; and yet the hon. Member states, in a contradictory manner, that the surplus is to be spent for the benefit of the ratepayers of a parish, as they, by resolution in vestry, publicly summoned, shall decide. But that is a power which they will possess even if this proposal is not carried; and, therefore, I hope the Motion will not be pressed.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I beg to move the following clause: — '' Nothing in this Act shall enable any sanitary authority to purchase compulsorily any existing labourers' allotments, whether attached to cottages or detached therefrom, or any land owned or hired on lease by any association or society registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, or under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, and actually let or in process of being let in allotments to members of such societies, and I hope that the Government will see their way to accept it. It is very simple and is proposed chiefly in the interests of many useful friendly societies which, in country districts, have acquired or are acquiring land for the purpose of letting it out in allotments to their members. One of my friends who represents a Division of Yorkshire tells me that in several parts of that county there are friendly and co-operative societies— especially in the larger towns—which have hired land some distance outside their district, and have used it for allotments with a view to providing vegetables and other produce for the consumption of their own members. I hope that the Government will accept the principle of this clause, and will either agree to it as I have framed it or accept the Amendment which, as an alternative, I am prepared to move, on Report, to Sub-section 6, of Clause 3, which tends in the same direction. It is not only highly desirable to protect the existing interests of allotment holders who may have improved their holdings, but, one of the objects of this Bill being to encourage voluntary effort for the provision of land, so far as possible, I think it is most desirable to protect such experiments, and to leave societies such as I have mentioned, and to exclude them from compulsory purchase.

Clause (Exclusion of labourers' allotments, &c, from compulsory purchase,) —(Mr. Channing,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

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

Sir, I cannot conceive that any Sanitary Autho- rity would ever desire to purchase compulsorily allotments of this kind provided that they were let in accordance with the provisions of the Bill at reasonable rents. But I do not think it would do to exclude all such lands from the operation of the Bill, because it might be that they were the most desirable contiguous to the neighbourhood, and they might be let at rents in excess of their agricultural value, and in such case I do not think it would be in the public interest to absolutely debar the Sanitary Authority from purchasing them.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause (Costs to be awarded in certain cases,) Where any Bill for confirming a Provisional Order authorising an improvement scheme 13 referred to a Committee of either House of Parliament upon the petition of any person opposing such Bill, the Committee shall take into consideration the circumstances under which such opposition is made to the Bill, and whether such opposition was or was not justified by the circumstances, and shall award costs accordingly to be paid by the promoters or the opponents of the Bill, as the Committee may think just, Any costs under this section may be taxed and recovered in the manner in which costs may be taxed and recovered under the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth Victoria, chapter twenty-seven. The decision of the majority of the Members of the Committee for the time being present and voting on any question under this section shall be deemed to be the decision of the Committee.

(Mr. Shaw Lefevre,) brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

, in moving the following clause: — Upon any scheme for providing common pasture being proposed, an inquiry shall be made as to what lands, if any, within the parish or district were formerly common lands, and when, and under what conditions, and upon what terms they have been enclosed. And such lands shall be, in the first instance, selected in preference to other lands for the purposes of such scheme of common pasture. And the said lands shall be taken at a valuation not exceeding the price at which it may be ascertained that the same were valued at the date of their inclosure, deducting therefrom the amount of compensation money, if any, paid at the time to the parties interested therein; or, if such previous valuation be not ascertainable, then the said lands shall be taken for such scheme as aforesaid at the current market value for agricultural land in the slid district, without any addition thereto for severance or otherwises, said: I put this clause on the Paper in order to carry out what the Government have declared to be their intention. On a recent occasion the right hon. Gentleman explained that in making provision for establishing a common pasture it was the desire of the Government to return to the system, the ancient system of this country under which there was a large acreage of common land. My contention is that if the Government really propose to return to the old system, they should do so in a thorough manner, and not in a half-hearted way. I therefore suggest that in returning to the ancient system they should endeavour to make restitution for the spoliation of common lands which Reports of Select Committee has proved to have taken place. I desire to call attention for one moment to the facts of this case. I do not hesitate to call it robbery of the poor in the matter of depriving them of their common lands. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be impatient, but I may remind them that I have not spoken yet this evening in the debate on the provisions of this Bill, I propose to occupy a short time, and I hope they will not interrupt me. I will not ask the Committee to go farther back than 1845 in order to ascertain how the lands of the poor have been taken away from them by rich landlords by means of Enclosure Acts. A Committee reported on the working of those Acts in 1869, it being appointed to consider how far the provisions relating to the labouring poor were being carried out, and whether, in order to properly protect the public interest, the Act required amending in the matter of the provision of spaces for recreation and for allotments for the labouring poor. In the course of the inquiry by that Committee, it was ascertained that out of 368,000 acres subject to these special provisions only 2,223 had been sub-let for playgrounds, and 1,742 for allotments. I think that is a sufficient condemnation of the conduct of the landlords and a sufficient refutation of the views we have heard expressed about the generosity of the landowners in giving allotments. It was also proved that none but agriculturists were allowed under the title of "the labouring poor." Upon 89,791 acres enclosed no allotments had been made at all. The noble Lord who had the Bill of 1845 in charge, said, in in moving its second reading, that in 19 out of 20 cases the conditions of en closure neglected to secure the rights of the poor. I have, in my hand, a well- known volume of essays by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), in which he sums up the operation of the enclosure. He says that though the pro vision was made to guard public interests, in practical working the Acts were detrimental to the interests of the labouring people.—[Interruption.] Well if I am to be interrupted—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order !

MR. CONYBEARE

The right hon. Gentleman continues—No regard is had to the interests of the public. He adds— Commons were enclosed which were in no way suitable for cultivation, and which, in their natural state, were of far greater value to the population, many being within easy reach of a large proportion of the population. I have quoted this statement by a high authority in order to show the enormous quantities of public lands in this country which have been deliberately taken away from poor people, and diverted to the interests and uses and wealth of rich and powerful landlords. Now, that is the charge which we make against the landowning class, and I challenge them to disprove it if they possibly can. That being the state of things, I ask the Government, when they talk of returning to the ancient order of things, not to be halfhearted about it, but in order to carry out the policy of relieving the ratepayers of the expense which the Bill may impose on them to see whether they cannot, by restoring to the public some, at least, of that land which has been stolen from them in past times, secure for their Act a cheaper and more efficient working than they otherwise could. Therefore, I propose that where any scheme is undertaken for providing common pastures, an inquiry shall be held as to what common lands have been in the past taken away, upon what terms, and under what conditions. I do not think, that any injustice can be done by this, but to make sure it is not, I propose that such lands should be taken at a price not exceeding their ascertained value at the time of enclosure, That is a very simple proposal. Hon. Members opposite may meet it by declaring that it is a policy of confiscation, of spoliation. I can only reply that the object is to restore to the public that which has been taken from them by confiscation and by spoliation in the past. There is embodied in the provision a policy of mutual concession. The Government, by accepting it, would relieve the ratepayers, and make their Bill more workable. I shall consider it my duty to press this matter to a Division.

Clause 1 (In providing common pasture, ancient common lands to be first selected,)—(Mr. Conybeare,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

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

The hon. Member has told us it will be his duty to speak once in every debate on this Bill. [Mr. CONYBEARE: No.] Then I misunderstood the hon. Member. But I certainly think it is unfortunate he should have felt it his duty to speak at length on such a clause as this. He professes to have the interests of the labourers at heart; he says he wishes to simplify procedure to market cheap, and to remove every obstacle to the successful working of the Bill. How does he do so? He proposes, as a first step, that in every parish for which allotments are held, and where formerly there were common lands, an inquiry shall be held as to when and under what conditions the conversion took place. I should like to know how long such an inquiry would take; how the allotment question would come out of it; and how much the expense would be increased? Again, whether these lands are suitable or not, simply because of the fact that they have been enclosed, are to be taken in preference to other lands. In support of his contention, he read some passages out of a book by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford, which had not the slightest application to the matter, as he seemed to see, for he dropped the book very suddenly. It referred to rough land—land used for recreation purposes, and certainly not suitable for labourers' allotments. Then he proposes a further inquiry as to the prices at which it is to be bought. The clause is not one which could be of any service to the cause which hon. Mem- bers who desire to pass this Bill have at heart.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 118: Majority 87.

[2.50 A.M.]

AYES
Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)	Hunter, W. A.
	Lawson, H. L. W.
Ballantine, W. H. W.	M'Arthur, W. A.
Biggar, T. G.	Nolan, J.
Bart, T.	O'Brien, P.
Campbell, H.	O'Kelly, J.
Carew, J. L.	Pickersgill, E. H.
Channing, F. A.	Quinn, T.
Clancy, J. J.	Rowlands, J.
Clark, Dr. G. B.	Sexton, T.
Cobb, H. P.	Stack, J.
Conway, M.	Stewart, H.
Cossham, H.	Tanner, C. K.
Dillwyn, L. L.	Winterbotham, A. B.
Finucane, J.
Flynn, T. C.	TELLERS.
Fuller, G. P.	Conybeare, C. A. V.
Hayne, C. Seale-	Kenny, M. J.

NOES.
Addison., J. E. W.	Finch, G. H.
Agg-Gardner, J. T.	Fisher, W. H.
Ambrose, W.	Fitzgerald, R. U. P.
Amherst, W. A. T.	Fitz-Wygram, General Sir F. W.
Anstruther, H. T.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Fletcher, Sir H.
Baden-Powell, G. S.	Folkestone, right hon. Viscount
Barry, A. H. Smith-
Bates, Sir E.	Forwood, A. B.
Beach, W. W. B.	Fraser, General C. C.
Beadel, W. J.	Gedge, S.
Beresford, Lord C. W. de la Poer	Gent-Davis, R.
	Gibson, J. G.
Bethell, Commander G. E.	Giles, A.
	Gilliat, J. S.
Bigwood, J.	Godson, A. F.
Blundell, Col. H. B. H.	Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.
	Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.
Bruce, Lord H.	Grimston, Viscount
Burghley, Lord	Hall, C.
Caldwell, J.	Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.
Campbell, J. A.
Carmarthen, Marq. of	Hamilton, Col. C. E.
Chamberlain, R.	Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.
Clarke, Sir E. G.
Collings, J.	Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-
Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.
Cooke, C. W. R.	Herbert, hon. S.
Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.	Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.
Courtney, L. H.
Dalrymple, Sir C.	Holland, right hon. Sir H. T.
Davenport, H. T.
De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.	Hornby, W. H.
De Worms, Baron H.	Hunt, F. S.
Dimsdale, Baron K.	Isaacs, L. H.
Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.	Jackson, W. L.
	Jarvis, A. W.
Egerton, hon. A. de T.	Kenyon - Slaney, Col. W.
Elton, C. I.
Evelyn, W. J.	Kimber, H.
Eyre, Colonel H.	King - Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.
Fellowes, A. F.
Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.	Knowles, L.
	Lafone, A.

Lawrance, J. C.	Robertson, J. P. B.
Lawson, Sir W.	Round, J.
Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.	Selwin - Ibbetson, rt. hon. Sir H. J.
Lewisham, right hon. Viscount
	Selwyn, Captain C. W.
Long, W. H.	Sidebotham, J. W.
Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.	Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
	Stanhope, rt. hon. E.
M'Laren, W. S. B.	Stephens, H. C.
Matthews, rt. hn. H.	Temple, Sir R.
Maxwell, Sir H. E.	Theobald, J.
Mayne, Admiral R. C.	Tollemache, H. J.
Mills, hon. C. W.	Tomlinson, W. E. M.
Milvain, T.	Vincent, C. E. H.
Mowbray, R. G. C.	Watson, J.
Northcote, hon. H. S.	Webster, Sir R. E.
Parker, hon. F.	Webster, R. G.
Pearce, Sir W.	Weymouth, Viscount
Pelly, Sir L.	Whitmore, C. A.
Plunket, right hon. D. R.	Wood, N.
	Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Plunkett, hon. J. W.
Powell, F. S.	TELLERS.
Rasch, Major F. C.	Douglas, A. Akers-
Reed, H. B.	Walrond, Col. W. H.
Ritchie, rt. hn. C. T.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Clause 2 (Duty of sanitary authority to acquire land for allotments).

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, B.)

It will be in the recollection of hon. Members that an Amendment similar to that I am now about to move was rejected in Committee, but, as I think, and as I felt at the time, on a distinct misunderstanding of the words—namely, that the Amendment necessitated a public meeting under all circumstances —but the words did not necessitate such an inquiry under all circumstances, but only when the Sanitary Authority deemed that the representation was based on insufficient grounds. The object of my present Amendments to secure that when it is suggested to them that the demand is based on insufficient grounds that they shall not reject it without holding an inquiry, and having the statements upon which the representation is made disproved. What I wish to test is whether the Government are really prepared to make the initiative steps really effective, or whether the initiative power of representation given to electors under the 2nd clause shall be without any weight whatever. As the clause at present stands it is worth nothing, the whole decision depends upon the state of mind of the Sanitary Authority; and what I want is that, if the Sanitary Authority refuses the application for allotments, that shall only be done after an inquiry has been held, and if the statements of the representation have been shown to be unreasonable. I hope the Go- vernment may accept it. When I moved it in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) accepted the principle; but the Amendment itself was rejected because the right hon. Gentleman opposite misunderstood my meaning, and supposed it would necessitate an inquiry under all circumstances.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 14, before the word "of," to insert the words, "unless the statements of such representations are proved to be without foundation, at an inquiry hold by such authority, within such urban district, or such parish or.'' —(Mr. Charming.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

What the hon. Gentleman wishes to provide is that every time a representation is made by six electors in the parish, or in such district, then this representation shall be taken to have been proved, and that such need exists, unless by inquiry the Sanitary Authority are satisfied that such representations are not based on fact. Yet the hon. Gentleman says he does not ask for a public inquiry. But I ask what other form of inquiry would be acceptable or possible where the onus would he on. The Sanitary Authority to prove that the representation was not a proper or right one?

MR. CHANNING

I said I did not ask for it under all circumstances.

MR. RITCHIE

The words are— Unless such representation is proved to be without foundation at an inquiry held by such sanitary authority, which clearly points out that it is their duty every time a representation is made by six electors to accept that as proof of fact, unless they hold an inquiry which of necessity must be public. Now, this is simply the old Amendment we discussed in Committee, and I showed then that it would simply tend to expense turmoil and trouble to introduce it, and the Goverment now, as then, cannot accept it.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, after the word "allotments" insert the words, "for the labouring population."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

; I should like the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to explain. Will this definition include small shopkeepers and other members of the community—what classes will be allowed to have allotments?

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, let me point out that he is very considerably narrowing the scope of the Bill by introducing these words. The Bill itself makes no reference whatever to the labouring population.

MR. RITCHIE

Yes; the very title.

MR. HALLEY STEWART

The title does, and I have put down a proposal to amend that. But the main text of the Bill, irrespective of the title, makes no reference to the labouring population, and the reason I apprehend why such words were not inserted was because there was an objection to such a definition, because in many cases Sanitary Authorities might so construe the Bill that it should only apply to those actually engaged in daily labour. Now, there are many small shopkeepers who increase their income by the sale of the produce of an acre of land, and they might fairly be excluded by these words. If the right hon. Gentleman inserts this Amendment, I am convinced the effect will be to exclude many persons who would not be excluded were the Bill allowed to remain as it now stands. I hope he will not press the Amendment; if he does I shall certainly divide against it. The Bill was proposed as an auxiliary to persons who have some other scanty means of existence—say, holders of annuities of 7s. or 8s. a-week, those who receive an annuity from the Government, retired soldiers and such like, and shop assistants and clerks, who could not be classed as labourers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press it.

MR. GEDGE (Stockport)

I also would beg the right hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment. Among the population of towns there is a growing need of allotments, and they would not come under the definition of labouring population, though the Bill would be just as much advantage to them.

MR. RITCHIE

The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing there is nothing in the Bill having reference to the labouring classes; the Bill itself is instituted a Bill to afford facilities for affording allotments to the labouring classes; and, I may say at once, it was the intention of the Government in bringing in the Bill that it should be for the benefit of the labouring population, and in Committee, and throughout its progress, it has been discussed upon that supposition, every speaker bringing prominently to the front the fact that it is intended for the labouring classes. Though the object has been clearly defined in the title, it has been thought desirable to make the meaning clear in the text, and that is the intention by this Amendment. I know the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Halley Stewart) holds strong views on the question of land. I think I am not going beyond his views when I say he believes that every man born of woman has a claim to an allotment.

MR. HALLEY STEWART

A right.

MR. RITCHIE

I am not going to argue that now; it is much too long an argument to enter upon; but he will not be surprised if I say that I do not quite concur in his contention. But he will admit that the first class of people claiming consideration are the labouring classes. If you extend the principle beyond the working classes, then the effect will be that where suitable land is limited, you will, by the extension, prevent the very class you desire to have allotments from obtaining them. I do not wish to draw the limit too finely, and I have no doubt that within our limit the Sanitary Authority will exercise discretion; but what we wish to represent clearly and distinctly to the Sanitary Authority is, that the main aim and object of this Bill is to provide allotments for the labouring classes.

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

I am very glad that we have an opportunity now of knowing at last what the intention of the Government has been in regard to this Bill. I must say for myself—and, at the same time, I know I express the opinion of many Members on this side—that if I had had any idea that it was the intention from the first to exclude classes of men who have in our discussions been alluded to over and over again, I, and many of us, would have voted against the second reading of the Bill. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman is not aware how the Amendment he proposes to introduce into the Act, interpreted as it will be, let us not forget, in hostility to applicants by the Boards of Guardians, will tend to narrow the operation of the Act. I understand that in the Irish Act this was so constantly felt that other Acts had to be passed for interpretation purposes.

MR. RITCHIE

It is confined to agricultural labourers.

MR. COBB

My hon. Friend just now alluded to towns, and I know that in my Division, at Rugby, Kenilworth, Southam, Kineton, and other places-there are a number of men who cannot be said to belong to the labouring class who certainly are looking forward to having allotments—men of the class of small shopkeepers, clerks, and also shop-assistants and apprentices. There are all sorts of men in these positions of life in towns, and why should they not have allotments? We certainly contemplated that the Bill would give everyone the opportunity of getting an allotment; and, depend upon it, to do so would be a national benefit, and would tend to increase the wealth of the country. I shall certainly join with the hon. Member for the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire in opposing the Amendment.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

I am very glad indeed that we shall be able to show the country how this small, this miserable Bill is being whittled down. Had this Amendment been proposed in "another place," I should not have been surprised, and I am very glad the hon. Member for Stockport(Mr. Gedge) has, from the other side of the House, entered his protest against it. This Bill has been looked forward to by dwellers in towns and large villages as a distinct benefit to them. There are large numbers of small tradesmen, clerks, foremen, mechanics, people who could not be classed among the labouring population, to whom this Bill would undoubtedly be a great benefit, and you are going to shut them out at the last moment by putting in, the words "labouring population to be interpreted by Boards of Guardians." I hope, at all events, that Members opposite who represent constituencies where they know there is a demand for allotments, who have had the fact brought home to their minds—with some of them the process has taken considerable time—will join with us in a protest against this Amendment.

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

It is very easy, of course, to fan this into a Party discussion, and to make platform speeches; but let me bring back the mind of the House to the real question. When the hon. Member says that small shopkeepers will be excluded, as not being included in the labouring population, that does not follow, because it very often happens that a man does labouring work while his wife keeps the shop. I do not suppose that persons who work in mills, foremen, and clerks, will be necessarily excluded.

MR. HALLEY STEWART

Will you make it '' working classes? "

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

That depends upon what definition you attach to the expression. When hon. Members speak of the large number of persons who may be excluded, they forget the large number of the class to whom the Bill is specially directed, and the limited supply of land for the purpose.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

It is surprising how this Government always seems to wobble when it sets its hand to anything for the good of the people. This Amendment, in my opinion, takes away half the value of the Bill, and in my own constituency will exclude mechanics from the benefit of the Bill.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Mechanics will be included.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

It is not the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that we have to rely on; it is the interpretation Boards of Guardians will put upon the clause, and certainly I think that, in many cases, they will hold that mechanics are excluded. Therefore, I say, the Amendment will, to a large extent, destroy the value of the Bill. I hope the Government will reconsider their position. I certainly shall not shrink from giving the people my opinion of it.

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)

I should be sorry if small shopkeepers were shut out from availing themselves of the Bill; but I do not quite see why it should be open to the whole population of towns, nor do I see how the Bill would be for their advantage generally.

MR. COBB

Why not?

COMMANDER BETHELL

If it were possible to draw a distinction among them I should be glad; but, under the circumstances, I am bound to say I think the Government are quite right in retaining the title of the Bill, and applying it to the labouring population, and if there is a Division I shall vote with the Government.

MR. CHANNING

I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman would Boards of Guardians interpret the measure as extending to shoemakers?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

They would be included, of course.

MR. CHANNING

Well, that may be the desire of the Government; but they must admit the words of the clause will be somewhat ambiguous. They seem to have created a wrong impression among hon. Members, and I do not see that they will be more clear to Boards of Guardians.

MR. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)

I really cannot see the use of putting in the words. If they are to include artizans and shopkeepers, even though the wife keeps the shop in her own name, if they are to include all who work for weekly or daily wages, what is the use of the words? If nobody is to be kept out by them, we might as well not insert the words.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 39: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 454.)

[3.15 A.M.]

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made: —In page 1, line 25, after persons, insert "belonging to the labouring classes."

MR. RITCHIE

, in moving the following Amendment:—In page 1, line 28, after "that," insert "in the opinion of the Sanitary Authority," said: I propose this to carry out a pledge I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), who said if the Sanitary Authority acquired land and did not recoup themselves for the outlay certain irate ratepayers might get a mandamus against them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 4, insert the following Subsection:—" For the purpose of this section, the expression ' reasonable rent' means the rent, exclusive of rates, taxes, and tithe-rent charge, which a person taking an allotment might reasonably he expected to pay, taking one year with another, to a landlord for an allotment, having regard to the value of agricultural and garden land in the neighbourhood, to the extent and situation of the allotment, to the expenses of adapting the land to the purposes of the allotment, and to the repairs and other outgoings payable by the landlord, and to the cost and risk of collecting the rents of and otherwise managing allotments." — (Mr. Ritchie.)

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

MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

This sub-section reads, deprived of its surplusage, this way— The definition ' reasonable rent' is rent which a person taking an allotment might reasonably be expected to pay to a landlord for the allotment. Now, what a person might reasonably be expected to pay to a landlord for an allotment is the rent usually payable and demanded for the allotment. Now, we all of us know that such rent is sometimes two, three, and four times more than that paid for agricultural purposes. Therefore, I propose, in the first instance, to amend the sub-section by leaving out the words "for an allotment," after the word "landlord;" and I claim the support of the right hon. Gentlemen the President of the Local Government Board, and this because he objected just now, in reference to friendly societies, that they might be letting land at a very high rent, and it was desirable that the Sanitary Author should have the power of taking land for friendly societies under these circumstances. I apprehend that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish that holders of allotments should pay more than the agricultural value.

Amendment proposed to proposed new Sub-section, in line 4, to leave out the words "for an allotment."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the sub-section."

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

It is quite clear these words must remain in. We are now dealing with a person who has got possession of an allotment, and the question arises, whether he has got possession of that allotment at a reasonable rent. We have endeavoured to carry out our intention and define what a reasonable rent is, and we provide for regard being paid to similar rents in the neighbourhood.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

This sub-section is introduced in connection with an Amendment of mine in Committee, I believe; but I cannot congratulate the right, hon. Gentleman on the simplicity or elegance of the definition he has introduced. I think it might have been much briefer and much more effective than it is. I would point out that there may be a Board of Guardians which is an unwilling Local Authority in the matter, and yet the Bill has the fault of leaving it practically to the Board of Guardians to say whether the price the labourers are asked to pay or are paying for an allotment is reasonable or not. It would be much better to fix the thing at once, and to say that the land must be paid for at the same rate as similar land in the neighbourhood. There are scores of cases in different parts of the country where allotments are being let for £10 an acre. Therefore, the Act will come into operation in places where the price of an allotment is double or more than double the price of argricultural land. Surely, that is not the idea of a reasonable rent which you want to put into the minds of the Local Authorities, and it is because we do not want to put such an idea into their minds that we need a provision of this kind. The definition which I have myself drawn up expresses the matter more clearly, I think. My preference for that definition, may, perhaps, be due to pardonable paternal pride; but, at all events, it seems to me to state clearly what is wanted. My suggestion is that the definition should be in this form— For the purpose of this section, the expression ' reasonable rent' means the average rent of land of the same quality and in the same parish, exclusive of rates, taxes, tithe rent-charge, and outgoings specially necessitated by the formation and management of allotments.

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

I should not imagine that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Go- vernment Board would have the smallest objection to leaving this definition out altogether, if the House wishes. We were pressed to give some definition, and it was pointed out that if the Local Authorities were called on to pay too high a rent they would not be obtaining the allotments in the manner desired by the House. I must say that it is rather strange that no hon. Gentleman has attempted to put a definition on the Paper.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

A definition was proposed in Committee.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

The hon. Baronet the Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derby (Sir Walter Foster) has kept his in his pocket, but he has not abstained from criticizing other people's proposals. It must be remembered that some of the allotments will be let from year to year, and some for longer periods. The Amendment makes no provision, however, for meeting differences in tenure. Of course, the Local Authorities, in considering the price to be given for land, would take into account the value of land of similar quality in the neighbourhood. The hon. Member has forgotten, when he talks about the prices paid for allotments in country districts, that when a landlord lets land for allotments he pays all the rates, taxes, and tithes. This being the case, of course the rent paid for allotments would average a higher amount than that paid for ordinary agricultural land. I submit that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has shown that this definition gives a fair standard of the rent to be paid for allotments, and that it is a distinct fulfilment of our pledge.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

I wish the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would tell us whether he is or is not aware that the rent paid to landlords for allotments is generally double that paid for agricultural land. [Cries of "No, no ! "] Well, I speak within my own knowledge when I say that I could take him into Lincolnshire and show him allotment land of exactly the same quality, in exactly the same place, and able to produce equally good crops under the same cultivation as the agricultural land surrounding it, and yet which is let at double the price of the neighbouring agricultural land. It is a standing grievance in our agricultural constituencies that the landlord does make the labourer pay for allotments double and sometimes treble that which is payable for agricultural land. We think we are asking a very small concession from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board when we request him to omit the words "for an allotment." If the landowner obtains the average value of agricultural land in the neighbourhood, he surely ought to be content. I hope that this House, or rather the minority in this House, will place on record its regret that the right hon. Gentleman should assist the landlords to get double the ordinary rent for land of this character.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

I do not know whether the hon. and learned Attorney General will agree with me; but I think it might save time if we accepted the Amendment, because it really makes no difference whatever to the definition. According to the Bill itself, the expression "reasonable rent" means a rent which a person taking an allotment might reasonably be taken to pay for an allotment.

MR. RITCHIE

We will take out the words.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, in line 5 of the new sub-section, to leave out the words, "agricultural and garden," and insert the word "similar."

Question, "That the words proponed to be left out stand part of the Sub-section," put and negatived.

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

Question proposed, "That the Subsection, as amended, be there inserted."

MR. CHANNING

As the hon. and learned Attorney General stated that no suggestion had come from this side of the House as to the definition of "reasonable rent," I wish to call attention to the fact that I, myself, moved an Amendment on the subject in Committee, to insert a practical definition of the "reasonable rent of allotments," and that at that stage the Attorney General argued in reply that no definition whatever was required, and that the clause was quite good enough as it stood. The Government have now accepted the principle which I then insisted on.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Acquisition of land for the purpose of this Act).

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 17, after the word "arbitrator," to insert the words "notwithstanding anything in the said Acts shall determine the amount of the costs and."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 33, to leave out the word "or."— (Mr. Ritchie.)

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

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 33, to leave out the words "attached to or," and insert the words "or other land."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

Question, "That the words 'or other land' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. HALLEY STEWART

I beg to move that the words "or may be" be omitted from the 38th line. At present the clause relates to the property of a Railway Company which is required or may be required for the purposes of their undertaking. No doubt the engineer of every Railway Company in this Kingdom expects that every bit of land he may have in his possession will at some time or other be likely to be used for the purposes of the undertaking; but I do not think we ought to take into account the problematical requirements of a distant future.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, to leave out the words "or may be." —(Mr. Halley Stewart.)

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

SIB RICHARD WEBSTER

I must point out to the hon. Member that these words are necessary. I think the hon. Gentleman forgets that unless land is actually required for railway purposes it becomes surplus land, and that at the expiration of 10 years it will either vest in the adjoining owner or will have to be sold. It would, however, certainly be a wrong thing to say that because land is not actually de facto at the moment required for the purposes of the railway it may be used for the purposes of this Act. These words are therefore necessary.

MR. P. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I am bound to say that the words are still more necessary in the case of canals, as I have reason to know from my experience of canals.

MR. HALLEY STEWART

I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, to leave out Sub-section (8), and insert— "The County Authority shall not make a Provisional Order for purchasing any right to coal or metalliferous ore."— (Mr. Ritchie.)

Question proposed, ''That Sub-section (8) stand part of the Clause."

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

May I ask whether this Amendment means that, if a Sanitary Authority has purchased land, and it shall be afterwards found that coal or ore is under that land, the purchase shall not be taken to include the minerals?

MR. RITCHIE

It is really intended to prevent any claim arising after the purchase money has been settled. No question can arise if no power is taken to purchase.

Question put, and negatived.

Words inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Improvement and adaptation of land for allotments).

Amendment proposed, In page I, line 13, after "fit," to add the words" and may from time to time do such things as may be necessary for maintaining such drains, fences, approaches, and roads, or otherwise, for maintaining the allotments in a proper condition."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Management of allotments).

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 36, at the beginning of the line, to insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Act."

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

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 4, line 37, to leave out" local," and insert" allotment;" line 38, to leave out "local," and insert" allotment; "page 5, line 1, to leave out" local," and insert "allotment;" and in line 3, to leave out "local" and insert "allotment."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Provisions as to letting and use of allotments).

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 12, after ''loss," to insert "but in calculating such loss any expenses incurred in an unsuccessful attempt to acquire land for allotments shall be excluded."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 20, after the word "allotments" to insert the words, "which are let."

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

MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

I beg to move in the 6th clause to insert after "accordingly" the words— Provided always, that, for the purposes of the Parliamentary franchise and the municipal and all other local franchises the tenants shall be deemed to be the occupiers, and such rates to have been paid by them, notwithstanding the provisions hereinbefore contained. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) is going to accept this Amendment; and I am confident he does not wish that the Bill should have a disfranchising effect.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 26, after the word "accordingly," to insert the words "Provided alvays, that, for the purposes of the Parliamentary franchise, and the municipal and all other local franchises, the tenants shall be deemed to be the occupiers, and such rates to have been paid by them, notwithstanding the provisions hereinbefore contained." — (Mr. Seale-Hayne.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

We do not think that there is any necessity, Sir, for this Amendment; but we will accept it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 8, to leave out from "same "to the last "and "in line 28, inclusive.—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

Amendment proposed, In page 6, at end, to add the following subsection:—" (6.) A tenant of an allotment may, before the expiration of his tenancy, remove any fruit and other trees and bushes planted or acquired by him, for which he has no claim for compensation.

Question, "That that sub-section be be there added," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Recovery of rent, and possession of allotments).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 6, line 20, before "thereof," insert "of the tenancy;" line 24, leave out from "parish" to end of line 25, and insert "leave at his last known place of abode in the district or parish, or fix in some conspicuous manner on the allotment; "line 29, leave out "or the incoming tenant," and insert "in default of agreement between the incoming and outgoing tenant; "and, in line 33, leave out "allotment wardens," and insert" sanitary authority."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 (Expenses and receipts).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 7, line 2, after "Act," insert "including allowances to officers of such authority for duties under this Act; "line 40, leave out "local," and insert" allotment;" line 41, leave out "appointed by them," and insert "and other persons acting under this Act; "page 8, line 2, leave out "local," and insert "allotment;" and after "managers," insert" and other persons."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 12 (As to combination of parishes and contributory places).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE the following Amendment made— In page 10, line 21, at end, add "where such population is not specified in such census, then in the county in which the largest part of the area of such district or parish is situated, and any doubt which may arise under this section as to the county shall be determined by the Local Government Board.

MR. RITCHIE

I have now a verbal, Amendment to propose—namely, at the end of the clause to add these words — Two or more parishes immediately adjoining each other may make a representation under this Act, and the sanitary authority of a rural district may take proceedings in respect of such parishes as if they were a single parish. This is to provide for very small parishes.

Amendment proposed, Clause 12, at end, to add— Two or more parishes immediately adjoining each other may make a representation under this Act, and the sanitary authority of a rural district may take proceedings in respect of such parishes as if they were a single parish.''—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Register of tenancies).

MR. RITCHIE

I now move the Amendment, of which I gave Notice earlier in the evening, to come in at the end of Clause 13.

Amendment proposed, at end of Clause, to add— And within one month after the 25th day of March in every year shall cause an annual statement, showing the receipts and expenditure under this Act in respect of the year ending on that day,and their liabilities outstanding on that day, to be deposited at some convenient place in the district, if urban, or the parish to which the statement relates, if the district is rural, and any ratepayer may, without fee, inspect and take copies of such statement."— (Mr. Ritchie.)

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 (Definition of county authority).

Amendment proposed, in page 10, to leave out lines 39, 40, and 41.

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 (Definitions).

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 2, after "a," to insert "field."

Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I think it desirable that a question should be asked as to the exact meaning of this Amendment, because at first sight it certainly has a very restrictive aspect.

MR. RITCHIE

When this Bill was going through Committee a question was raised as to whether the Sanitary Authority ought to have power to obtain land for the purpose of adding to the land attached to a cottage, and the Committee, I think, without a Division, agreed that that was not the intention of the Bill, but that the intention was that where there was a strip of garden ground in the immediate proximity of a cottage this should not be excluded from the definition of an allotment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 10, to leave out the first "and," and, after "arable," to insert "and other land."

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

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

I shall not divide the House upon the Amendment I have placed on the Paper, to leave out ''for the labouring classes" in the title, because that question has been already decided; but I must express my regret that this Bill, by that decision, is narrower than when it was introduced.

MR. RITCHIE

Perhaps the House will allow the Bill to be read a third time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time,"— (Mr. Ritchie,)—put, and agreed to.