SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.—(No. 183.)

HC Deb 09 May 1892 vol 4 cc375-449

COMMITTEE. [Progress 11th April.]

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1.

*MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

I beg to propose the following Amendment:— In page 1, after line 13, insert—"And the Local Government Board may, by a Provisional Order, authorise a County Council to take compulsorily any land referred to in such Order for any term not exceeding 99 years, at a rent and subject to terms and conditions to be determined in case of difference by arbitration in the manner prescribed for determining a question of disputed compensation by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending the same, which shall apply as if such compulsory taking for a term of years were a purchase of land otherwise than by agreement. I do not propose to detain the House by making a long addition to what I had an opportunity of saying the other night. I desire now to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment is not new. It has already been adopted in the Crofters Act and in an Irish Act passed in 1875 by a Conservative Government. Sir, we hear now a good deal about equal laws for England, Ireland, and Scotland. Weil, I claim the same advantages for the agricultural classes of this country as are enjoyed by the Irish and the Scotch. Looking back to the Debate on the Allotments Act, when I moved a similar Amendment to this, I find the chief objection taken to it was that it would be an injustice to the landlord. I differ entirely from that view. Instead of doing injustice to landlords, I believe that this Amendment would be welcomed by them. I admit at once that an injustice might be done to the landlord if it was proposed by compulsion to take a piece out of the centre of his estate, thereby, perhaps, ruining the amenities of that estate and reducing its value in the market. But, Sir, this Amendment proposes to do nothing of the kind. It simply proposes that the landlord shall do what in his pecuniary interest he is bound to do. He is bound to let his estate to someone, and this Amendment proposes that he shall let it to a good tenant—namely, the County Council, for the purpose of carrying out the objects of this Act. Well, Sir, the landlord can, by letting his estate to the County Council, introduce into the covenants provisions which may protect his rights; and I think, therefore, it is idle to object to such a very reasonable proposition as this on the ground that it would do any injustice to him. In my Amendment I propose that the maximum term shall be 99 years, but I am perfectly willing to give way on that point, and agree to reduce the maximum term to 40 or 50 years. There is no limitation in my Amendment to the ground to be taken, but I am ready to consent to any such limitation. My sole object is to make the Bill, if possible, of some use. The President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Chaplin), when he introduced this Bill, said it was a tentative measure. Surely, if that is the case, it would be better to try an experiment in a limited way by taking land on lease in the first instance; and, if that succeeds, then will be the time to introduce compulsory powers for the purchase of land outright. I believe, if the Government will only agree to this Amendment, this Bill may be of some practical use, instead of, as I consider it in its present condition, mere waste paper.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 13, after the word "holdings," to insert the words—"And the Local Government Board may, by a Provisional Order, authorise a County Council to take compulsorily any land referred to in such Order for any term not exceeding ninety-nine years, at a rent and subject to terms and conditions to be determined in case of difference by arbitration in the manner prescribed for determining a question of disputed compensation by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending the same which shall apply as if such compulsory taking for a term of years were a purchase of land otherwise than by agreement."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)

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

*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,) Lincolnshire, Sleaford

Probably the hon. Member is aware that the Committee has already discussed the question of compulsory purchase, and has negatived the proposal. There is no need, therefore, to examine that subject again in detail. I cannot see that the Crofters Act and the Irish Act, to which the hon. Member has referred, afford any precedent whatever in support of this Amendment, which is one the Government are unable to agree to. It is obvious that its effect would be to place the landlord at a great disadvantage if he should desire to realise his property.

MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)

I hope the Committee will not refuse to accept the present proposal. It is of less magnitude than the previous one, and can be carried out without serious inconvenience to the owners of land generally. If it were proposed to give the County Councils power to purchase land compulsorily, it might be argued that they would render themselves liable for future contingencies for which future generations might refuse to be held accountable; but in a proposal of this kind, limited for 99 years, or for 40 or 50 years if the Committee wishes, the argument does not apply to the same extent. I do not see how the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman would meet those cases in which land in different parishes is in the hands of one man, who is either unwilling or unable to sell in spite of Lord Cairns' Act, or of any Act of a similar kind. There may be a difficulty in the case of such an owner, either in regard to his family or on account of his trustees, which might render it impossible for him to sell his land to the County Council. In such a case I think the landlord would welcome a provision of the kind now proposed.

*COLONEL EYRE (Lincolnshire, Gainsborough)

I object to any proposal which directly or indirectly introduces the principle of compulsion. Hon. Members might, by referring to a book in the library of the House, see that out of 1,100,000 owners of land in England there are 850,000 persons holding less than one acre, and if they still further investigated the Return in question they would find that, in Lincolnshire—where I have the honour to represent a Division—there are no less than 30,000 holders of land, 15,000 holding from one to ten acres, and 10,000 holding from ten to fifty acres; and in one ringed fence in part of the Division out of 50,000 acres there is only one estate of 3,000 acres, the remaining 47,000 acres being in the hands of small owners and occupiers, men who, without the assistance of the State, have been enabled to purchase their own small holdings. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that the result in my Division of the attempt to introduce the idea of compulsion has been to consolidate the votes in my interest, and I can safely say that the same feeling is spreading throughout the county of Lincolnshire, the reason being that the introduction of the principle of compulsion creates a feeling of insecurity. It was only the other day that an hon. Member who represents a Division of Northampton narrated to me the following incident: At one of his meetings a man suggested that a certain field was wanted for the agricultural labourers, and that it should be taken by compulsion. The owner who was present jumped up and said, "I brought up a family on this field, which I purchased myself, and I do not see what right any one has to turn me out of it." Well, what affects the small owner affects the large owner. In one town in my Division, representing 5,000 acres, there are no less than 260 owners and occupiers, of whom 160 are owners, and the average ownership, or "take," is something like 30 to 40 acres of land. If the principle of compulsion were inserted in this Bill, any man from any part of the world could come and take up a lodging in tha town or village and claim that these small holders should have their land taken from them. But, Mr. Courtney, there is another point which seems to me of importance. Will not the security of investments in land be affected if it is known that the County Council may take any portion of land over any part of the estate without consulting the mortgagee? Who are these mortgagees? Rich as well as poor men. Take the first class. Nearly 50 per cent. of the securities of the Life Assurance Companies is in mortgages on land, directly or indirectly through Land Improvement Companies Let us go a step further, and take the Friendly Societies, and in particular the Manchester Order of Odd-fellows, with a capital of £7,500,000. More than half of that amount, which is the hard-earned savings of the working classes, is invested as mortgages on land. There are also schools, hospitals, charities, and trust money, all of which are affected by the security or insecurity of land. If their land is to be taken compulsorily, and the value of it thereby diminished, I scarcely think that the working classes throughout the country, who are members of those societies, will appreciate the efforts of hon. Members opposite. I merely mention these facts, because I consider them to be of considerable importance in the discussion of this matter; and I know, at the same time, from letters I have received, that I am speaking in the interest of a large number of small holders in my Division.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

I think the hon. Member need not be alarmed at the prospect of small holdings being taken for the purpose of creating small holdings. In that part of Lincolnshire represented by the hon. Member (Colonel Eyre) there are a large number of small holdings. But that is an exceptional case.

COLONEL EYRE

Small holdings exist all over England.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

I contend that the state of things in the Division represented by my hon. Friend is exceptional, and that in a great portion of England large ownership of land is the rule. In a great number of dis- tricts it is totally impossible for small owners to obtain land by purchase. My own belief is that in nearly half the rural parishes of England the land in each parish belongs substantially to a single owner. That is the conclusion I have arrived at after careful consideration, and it is in these cases that the Bill will operate to the best advantage, and it will be precisely in these cases where there will be the greatest difficulty in getting land for the purposes of this Bill. Now, the House has refused to give compulsory power to purchase in fee, which I should have much preferred to the present proposal. We have therefore to fall back on something less than that, and I think it would be better that there should be included in the Bill power to take land for 99 years than that there should be no compulsion at all, and for that reason I shall support the hon. Member's proposal.

(5.0.) MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesly)

The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment (Mr. Seale-Hayne), in introducing his remarks, stated that in the absence of the present Amendment the Bill would be nothing more than waste paper. My opinion is that, whatever may be the value of the Bill as it stands, this Amendment is worse than useless. The compulsory leasing of land will destroy the whole character of the Bill and make it inoperative, and, indeed, make it so unpopular with the ratepayers on account of the risks involved that it would be practically a dead letter. Suppose this Amendment were adopted, what would it mean? In the first place, there must be a valuation and the law costs therein involved; and then the Local Authority, which represents the ratepayers, would obtain possession of the land, with all the costs of compulsory acquisition, for a term of fifty, sixty, or, it may be, ninety-nine years. The result would be that a Local Authority might become responsible for large tracts of land—that is, for the payments under the lease, and at the same time have no security that the rents would be paid, or, indeed, that the land would not be thrown on their hands. Then, again, with respect to buildings, the proposal would put an end to all possibility of the small holder having any buildings on his land, for, of course, the Local Authority, under a forty or fifty years' lease, cannot put up the buildings, knowing that at the end of the lease they would simply go into the hands of the landlord, and the tenant will not put up buildings for the same reason. In fact, what is being advocated now has all the evils of the leasehold system, which I thought was regarded with feelings of aversion by hon. Members on this side of the House. But another difficulty presents itself. Suppose the Local Authority acquires five hundred acres on lease, the land will have to be adapted to the small tenants; there will have to be a water supply, and various other expenses will necessarily be incurred. What will happen at the end of the forty or fifty years, when the lease expires? Will the landlord require that the land shall be put back in the same condition as it was when he leased it, or will the Local Authority simply have to lose all outlay made upon the land, and the tenant have to sacrifice his proportion in the way of what he he has put into the land? I venture to say, in view of the expense that would be involved in acquiring land under this clause, and looking at the insecurity in the matter of compensation for improvements, and looking at the other drawbacks, that the clause would be a dead letter, and no Local Authority would be permitted by the ratepayers to involve itself in the enormous liability to loss this leasehold system would involve. The principle of this Bill is to create occupying owners of the land, and I hope the Government will stick to this principle. On the other hand, there is an attempt to turn this into a Bill for creating small tenants, and I hope the Government will not make this their leading idea, but will resist the Amendment, which I regard as most damaging to; the main intention of the Bill.

(5.6.) MR. R. T. REID (Dumfries, &c.)

I agree with the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) in thinking that the leasehold system is a very unfortunate one, and I think it would be a deplorable thing if that system were introduced into agricultural holdings. But the Amendment now before the House has been proposed only to facilitate the letting of land on lease because we are unable to get facilities for taking the land in fee, and my hon. Friend's objections are valid to a certain extent, but only to a certain extent. The defect does not lie in the object of the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Seale-Hayne), but in the unfortunate obstinacy of the Government, who refuse to give facilities for the compulsory acquisition of the freehold of the land. But I do not think this Amendment can be set aside, for that reason, and I shall vote for it. The hon. Member for Bordesley says that the task will be thrown upon the Local Authority of ascertaining the value of the fee simple; but the same task would be thrown upon the Local Authority if they were to buy the fee simple. Then he says that buildings will not be erected on the land under the leasehold system by the tenants. Buildings are now erected under the leasehold system of 99 years, and even a shorter term. It is deplorable, no doubt, that the tenants cannot get better tenure; but they are obliged to content themselves with the best they can get. The main justification of this Amendment is that in the course of a very few years this Bill will be made of value by having inserted the compulsory clauses which are now omitted. And whether that is done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian or the Member for West Birmingham, whichever it may be that will dictate the course of policy in the near future—for I believe they are both agreed on the principle of compulsion—it is desirable that, in the interval between the present time and the insertion of these compulsory powers, we should have the power of leasing land, and the leaseholders will then very easily be turned into freeholders.

(5.10.) MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

This Amendment raises two questions of the highest importance, but it raises them in a most inconvenient way. The two questions are whether there shall be compulsion in the application of the provisions of this Bill, and whether there should be leasing as well as, or instead of, the creation of absolute ownership. As regards the principle of compulsion, it appears to me that the House has already decided that question, because all of us agree that if compulsion is to be employed at all, it would be much better to employ it in creating ownerships than in creating leasehold tenancies. And, as the House has decided against compulsion in the former case à fortiori, it will so decide in this instance, and, in my opinion, will rightly decide. I would say to my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Reid), who anticipates, as I think I am a little inclined to do myself, that in the course of a few years the objections to compulsion will die away, and that some form of compulsion will be introduced, that his argument will not be answered by introducing now the inferior form of compulsion for leases. I am well aware that the former proposal was for the introduction of compulsion for the very important purpose of creating freeholds, and what this Amendment does is to raise the question in another form; but, having settled once the issue of compulsion, I think the majority of the House will have no doubt as to what course it ought to take. But I am very sorry that the Amendment is not moved in a form in which the House might have come to a decision upon it, as undoubtedly it contains another point quite separate and apart from compulsion, which is of the very greatest importance—namely, whether, as I have said, small holdings are to be created in the shape of tenancies as well as in the shape of ownerships. I must say it appears to me that there is a good deal of confusion on this point amongst hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian is not here.

A right hon. GENTLEMAN

He will be here.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I am glad of that, because the other night when he was speaking on the subject of compulsion he also spoke of leases, and he appealed to me saying he thought I might agree with him on that subject. I said I did not think I agreed with him at all; but I have come to the conclusion since, partly from having had a number of conversations with him, either that he did not explain very clearly what he meant, or that I was not intelligent enough to understand it. I now understand that what my right hon. Friend wishes is to introduce into this Bill, in addition to the provisions that are already there, provisions for enabling the Local Authority after it has obtained possession of the land to be let on perpetual feu. All I can say is that to that principle I should give my adherence.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman himself has said this discussion is raised in a most inconvenient form. The question is the acquisition of land by the County Council, and not what is to be done by the County Council in respect of the land which has been obtained. The discussion on that point will arise on Clause 3. It will be well that this discussion should keep to the point at issue.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

I did not raise this discussion.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I agree, Mr. Courtney, as to the inconvenience; but I must point out how I think my remarks are in order and arise naturally out of the Amendment in its present form. It declares that the County Council shall have power to obtain land on lease for 99 years, or on periods of less than 99 years; consequently it is perfectly evident that, having obtained the land only on lease, it must let it on lease, and cannot sell it. If no shorter term than 99 years were mentioned it would be impossible for the County Council to sell to the small holders. Consequently, the whole question of leasing arises on this Amendment. I was saying that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was for compulsory feu, and that, I need; not say, is not a question which arises on this Amendment, because this must be restricted to leasing and letting for a less term than 99 years. But there is another point on which we are in some doubt, and that is what amount of land is to be so leased. Does the hon. Member mean that the terms of his Amendment shall apply to all holdings between one acre and fifty acres, this being the general limit of the Bill? If he intends only to apply this to small quantities of less than fifty acres, then I think the Bill already goes a long way to meet him, because it provides that the County Council shall have power to lease land up to ten acres. Therefore the only point between us would be whether that power should be extended up to fifty acres. That is the point that is raised by the Amendment. Is it desirable in this Bill to give power to the County Authorities to lease land in any quantity up to fifty acres, either on annual tenancies or on any term up to 99 years? This is a subject which was carefully considered by the Committee of which the hon. Gentleman himself was a member, and, unless I am very much mistaken, he voted in a sense which I should say was inconsistent with his present Amendment. The Committee came to the conclusion that if any Bill were to be brought in with these large provisions for creating small tenancies, one great object of the whole of this legislation would be entirely lost sight of—namely, the creation of a peasant proprietary. And, unless you get that, you lose entirely that sentimental feeling of possession which induces a man to put more work and more money into the land which is actually his own than he will into land which is not actually his own, which never will be his own, and which he only leases for a term of years. I would urge upon the House the importance of that consideration in this matter. You cannot let the land to these small holders at a price as low as the landlord can let it now, because if the landlord is willing to let at all, he is willing to let at two per cent. on his outlay; but if you are going to buy the land and then borrow money at 3 or 3½ per cent., and incur the various responsibilities which necessarily follow, you will have to let at a rate equivalent to 4 per cent. The only inducement to the small holder is that under this Bill he will be the actual owner of his land, and as the owner he can afford to put much more labour and energy into the land than he could afford to do if he were paying 4 per cent., and can make it pay much better. All that you might get in the shape of small ownerships you will lose entirely if you adopt a plan of small tenants. Another thing which was touched upon by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Jesse Collings) is the enormous increase of risk to the ratepayers if you substitute tenanncies of this kind for ownerships. Is it not perfectly certain that there will be fluctuations in seasons and prices, and periodically times will be bad? How is a popularly representative Local Authority to resist the pressure that will be brought to bear on it under these circumstances for a reduction of the rent? At such times the landlords will be reducing their rents; at times of pressure they invariably do reduce their rents, and if they are not compelled to do so they do so voluntarily. The Local Authority will be under compulsion to reduce the rents, and the example of the contiguous landlords will be brought to bear upon them to enforce the argument for reduction. Under these circumstances, and as a Local Authority will never be able to raise the rents, it is absolutely impossible that a transaction of this kind can be carried on without loss to the ratepayers. Perhaps you may be willing to face this; but the moment it becomes evident to Local Authorities that they cannot carry out the Bill without a loss of this kind, from that time they will cease to carry it out at all, and unless you are going to compel the Local Authorities to buy land, no Local Authority in the Kingdom will undertake any transactions under this Bill. Then we must look at the important question of improvements. If you make a small tenant the owner of the land, you get rid at once of all those complicated questions of tenants' improvements which must arise if he is to become a temporary occupier only. Although this House has been trying for a great number of years to arrange for some satisfactory scheme of compensation for improvements, I believe by common consent, it has failed, and I believe it always will fail. There is no satisfactory compensation for improvements possible, except the increased value a man may obtain on the sale of the land if he is himself the owner. That is another source of difficulty you are putting in the way of the creation of small holdings if you adopt a system of tenancies instead of ownerships. Then the question of buildings was referred to. I do not lay much stress upon that; but, at the same time I believe that where a man is the absolute owner of the land, and has no landlord to consult, there is a probability that he will put up buildings, which, although they will not be as good as the landlord's, will be sufficient for the purpose of the tenant, and from time to time they will be improved; and, unless you leave the responsibility of providing these buildings to the tenant, the expense to the Local Authority of providing them will so enormously increase the risk, that there, again, you will almost make it prohibitory. The Amendment proposes that the Local Authority should have power to lease for any term less the 99 years, and my hon. and learned Friend behind me (Mr. Reid) said there were numberless cases in which persons had put up buildings on land which was held for 99 years. But that is assuming that the maximum term will always be the minimum term.

MR. R. T. REID

I have known buildings put up on much less than 99 years' lease.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I have known cases of forty years, and one case of 21 years, but I think that is an uncommon state of things. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree with me, that if the lease is to be for a short term, say 21 years, there would be much more difficulty in the way of the tenant putting up the necessary buildings than if he were the absolute owner. I put before the Committee the objections which struck me as insuperable to the ideas contained in the Amendment. A great number of these objections, probably all of them, would not apply to such a proposal as I understand might be made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. A proposal for a perpetual feu is, of course, a proposal for what is equivalent to a perpetual freehold. There are some advantages in favour of such a system, but I will not discuss them now. I see, also, some disadvantages, and I want to call the attention of hon. Members on this side of the House to the fact that it is not upon that we are voting now. If we must vote against this Amendment, we can vote against it without committing ourselves in any way to a general objec- tion to the principle of a perpetual quit rent or feu; and we naturally object to the proposal in the Amendment, which, in its present form, will be absolutely unworkable.

*(5.25.) MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

I hope the Member for Devon (Mr. Seale-Hayne) will go to a Division, for now we have heard the Members for Bordesley and West Birmingham we understand what we are going to vote about. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman into the question of what is to be done with the land when it has been obtained; first, because I prefer to follow your ruling, Mr. Courtney, and not his; and, secondly, because I believe it will be very much more convenient to deal with that subject under Clause 3. This Amendment aims solely at giving Local Authorities another means of obtaining land necessarily only for letting purposes. The hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) said that he looked upon this Bill mainly and chiefly as an ownership Bill. We do not. Hon. Members who are going to vote against this Amendment regard this as a Bill mainly for the purpose of creating a yeoman farmer class. We look upon it, if it is to be of any value at all, chiefly as a means for allowing the Local Authorities to obtain land for the labourers, and this is a question we shall hear more about. The labourer does not generally want to buy the land. He cannot do it; he has not got the money to do it. He has told you so at your Congresses over and over again. If there are a few who are able to do it, by all manner of means let them become yeomen farmers. I know the agricultural labourers of the West Country, and they are not able to buy; but many of them are anxious to acquire land as tenants at a fair price and a fair tenure, and to put their little capital and their little savings into the land. The Member for Bordesley has stated the great difference of view between us quite accurately and fairly; and I am going into the opposite Lobby to him because I believe the labourers want to be tenants and not owners. This Amendment merely proposes an extra alternative. You do not prevent a County Council from buying land from a willing landlord; but there are many landlords in England who are unable or unwilling to sell their land because of the tenure, or because of the conditions of ownership, who may be perfectly willing to let land to the County Council on lease for 50 years, and they may be willing to insert clauses to give fair compensation for improvements, which, of course, if they are honest men, they ought to be anxious enough to do. The Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) spoke about the difficulties of estimating this compensation. That is, no doubt, a very vital question, but I do not think it arises on this clause. I could tell this House, if I were in order, of land sold last week in the Eastern Division of Gloucestershire, where the rent has been run up from £3 to £10 per acre, and is now sold by auction over the heads of the tenants, who have no claim for compensation or prolonged possession. If this Bill leaves the House without some better security for compensation than is suggested by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, there will be very little encouragement for these poor labourers to put their hearts into the land. I also differ entirely from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that people can get land in the open market from willing landlords at a rental based upon a 2 per cent. profit on the landlord's capital. If that is what prevails in the neighbourhood of Birmingham I am very glad to hear it. I am well aware that many large farms are let, in certain districts, at an equivalent to 2 or 2½ per cent.; but I am aware of no district where landlords, however benevolent and well-disposed, are willing to let land in small lots to labourers at two per cent. on its value. I think it will be much better, therefore, for the County Councils to get this land, in many districts at prices which will give the landlords three per cent., on long leases, and the labourers will only be too glad to pay four per cent. to the County Council. This would avoid all risk to the ratepayers, and create a sinking fund, if you like, for the possible ultimate purchase of the land. We vote for this Amendment because it gives an extra alternative to the Local Authority for acquiring land for letting in small portions, and we vote against the view of the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) that this is a Bill for creating yeoman farmers and owners only.

(5.32.) MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Midlothian)

I feel very much, in conformity with what has dropped from the Chair, as to there being an inconvenience in discussing together two questions which are quite distinct, and each of which deals with a subject of sufficient magnitude to deserve separate attention. At the same time, after the remarks of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), I admit, when it is proposed to give a certain power to the Local Authorities to acquire land upon leases not exceeding 99 years, we cannot avoid in some degree taking into consideration the question whether, when they have got that land they can find useful employment for it? Now, Sir, my position is this. The Mover of this Amendment, I should think, in the abstract, is not at all satisfied with his own Amendment; that is to say, he is not satisfied with the limited sphere in which he, and I, and all of us are obliged to act. We wish to give powers under which the Local Authority would be able to make much more efficient arrangements; but being cribbed, cabined, and confined as we are, we are bound to make the best of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has made a concession, and an important concession, in promising when we reach the proper portion of the Bill to introduce the principle of renting land. That I admit to be a concession which we ought to welcome, and therefore the question I have to ask myself is, not whether the Amendment of my hon. Friend does all that can be desired. There I agree with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that the arrangements that can be made under this Bill by the Local Authority would be very imperfect arrangements, but still they will be worth having, and I am so convinced that my hon. Friend is right about the unpreparedness of the labourers to pay down capital sums as a general rule, that every alternative to that is to me welcome even within the narrowest limits. I will take leave to make one comment by way of criticism on the remarks of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and that is this. He said that the labourer has no general anxiety to become a proprietor, he wants to get the use of the land, but not as a proprietor, evidently because, in my hon. Friend's view, that becoming proprietor involves paying down a capital sum which he has not got in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of one thousand. Yes; but there is one form in which, if we were in a position to give it, he would be glad to become a virtual proprietor, that is under the form of freeing the land, but that is out of our power. We look to this Bill as an interim Bill, and we accept it in the hope of enlargement and improvement in the future. But, undoubtedly, when I consider the difficulties in the way of bringing the farm labourer into contact with the land, into a use of the land for his own profit—which is the object we all have in view—I do accept every method which opens to him a door, even though it be a wicket door, and as, undoubtedly, I think endowing the County Council, with besides the option of buying the land the option of leasing it, does enlarge the limited sphere in which we are permitted to act under the provisions of this Bill, and endeavouring to look at the question simply and solely from a practical point of view, that the Amendment of my hon. Friend will make the Bill a better Bill than it is without it, I shall undoubtedly be disposed to accept it in the same spirit in which it is proposed.

(5.37.) MR. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I hope the Committee will not introduce the leasing principle into the Bill, my objection to it being that the labourer will not bestow on land, belonging to somebody else, the same amount of labour which he would if he were the owner. There is another great objection which I have—namely, that it would lead to the compulsory purchase of the land at excessive prices, and in addition there is the practical objection that when you carry out these transactions it is of the greatest importance that all the parties should know what they are doing. The County Council should know what price they are going to pay for land, and the labourer should have some idea of the price he may expect, to get it at. Under this system of compulsory purchase they will not know. The Council will have to serve notice on the landlords, and from the date of that notice the land belongs to the County Council, the price having afterwards to be determined. The County Council may find when that price is fixed that it is one which will prevent them letting the land at a price the labourers will pay, and the land will be left on their hands. If the County Council acts under the compulsory terms they will be saddled with land which they can only deal with at a loss. For these reasons I object to the leasehold system and compulsory purchase.

*(5.40.) MR. SEALE-HAYNE

The argument of the President of the Board of Agriculture amounts to this: that the landlord injures his estate by granting a lease. Every landlord in the country grants leases, why should he not grant one to the County Council? I cannot understand the position of the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) with regard to the Amendment. I proposed an Amendment on the Allotments Bill in almost the same words, and he supported it with his vote. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham appeared to get completely mixed up in his argument, for he talked about the County Council getting land and letting land as if these were the same question. The Amendment deals with the question of the County Council taking land on lease, and not with that of letting land. I hope, after this discussion, I shall get the support of hon. Members opposite who are perfectly well acquainted with the wants of the agricultural labourer, and know that what he wants is to rent land at a fair agricultural value.

(5.42.) MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)

I desire to support the Amendment. I know that in the county with which I am best acquainted—Essex—compulsion is not needed, as land is going out of cultivation. But I cannot understand why, having digested the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts and the compulsory clauses of the Allotments Acts, and in view of the possible expropriation of the land by Railway Companies, hon. Members on this side should refuse to swallow the mild compulsion of the Amendment.

(5.44.) MR. HALDANE (Haddington)

I was surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), because I have among my papers a representation from his constituency pointing out that this question of leasing is to them the most important thing which could be put in the Bill. His constituents think that the County Council of their county will not be induced to embark on a large transaction of purchase out and out. They think that the Council should be empowered to take such land as is wanted on short leases, and to re-let it in small holdings. In Forfarshire there are probably more small farms—from 50 to 100 acres—than in any other county in Scotland, and they are held under this very tenure which the hon. Member rises up to condemn. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) put one or two cases which seemed of a formidable nature, and it is true that the system of ownership is preferable. But in many cases these small tenants cannot purchase out and out, as they have not the quarter of the purchase money required; but if the County Council has power to take land on lease these tenants can come in and take a small holding on lease. It seems to me that is a useful form of transaction, and one which we ought to provide as an alternative. I have also received re presentations from my own county, from the class likely to be most intimately concerned in the matter, to the effect that they believe the leasehold system will be the one most readily available, and I, therefore, wish to take this opportunity of expressing my opinion on the question.

(5.48.) MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I only came into the House while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was speaking, and if the Division had been at once taken I should have been inclined to vote with him; but I agree, on an examination of the clause under discussion, and the Amendment, that the right hon. Gentleman got rather mixed in his arguments. They were sound on the point to which they were directed, and I thought from them that the point he was combating was that of allowing tenants under the County Council to let their holdings to others; that would be a most objectionable proposal. But I find that the proposal is really for the County Council to take land compulsorily on leases not exceeding 99 years. I agree in the desirability of this proposal to give further scope to the Bill, but, in my opinion, the Amendment does not go far enough; why should they be limited to leases not exceeding 99 years? Why should they not be empowered to take land for 999 years or on perpetual leases? If that were done, I do not see how the difficulties referred to by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) as to buildings, improvements, and so on, would apply at all. Although in my view this is a rubbishy measure, and hardly worth our attention at all, so limited is its scope and so little good is it likely to be to those it is desired to help, I am anxious, by supporting an Amendment of this kind, to enlarge the scope as much as possible, and so make the Bill a little more useful. The hon. Member for Essex (Major Rasch) seemed to think that hon. Gentlemen on his side would object to the Amendment because of the compulsion in it. I agree with him that as compulsion has been recognised in so many other Acts it is rather straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel for hon. Members on either side to object to the compulsion in the Amendment. The principal point, however, is rather that of enabling the County Council to take land on lease. If there is no risk in the County Council going into the market and becoming speculators in land, there can be no more risk in them leasing it for a term of years.

(5.52.) SIR J. KINLOCH (Perth, E.)

If the Bill is going to be any use in Scotland, it is important that leasing power should be given to the County Council.

THE CHAIRMAN

The point to which the hon. Baronet is referring will be dealt with in a later portion of the Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 229.—(Div. List, No. 110.)

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Merionethshire is outside the scope of the Bill, and therefore it cannot be put, being out of Order.

MR. THOMAS ELLIS (Merionethshire)

May I ask, on the point of Order, whether, during the passing of the Allotments Act, in which, so far as I recollect, no instruction was added, an Amendment similar to this, and almost identical in its words, was accepted in the course of the Debate on the Bill?

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not remember anything about that case. This Amendment is quite outside the scope of the Bill.

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

As regards the Amendment referred to by the hon. Member in reference to the Allotments Bill, so far as my recollection goes the provision was originally in the Bill.

(6.8.) SIR W. FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

On behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. Channing) I beg to move in page 1, line 16, to leave out the word "agriculture," and insert— Agricultural or pastoral holdings or for market or allotment gardens. The object of this Amendment is to bring in a number of pastoral holdings, which otherwise would be excluded from the operation of the Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept it.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 16, to leave out the word "agriculture," and insert the words "agricultural or pastoral holdings or for market or allotment gardens."—(Sir W. Foster.)

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

*(6.9.) MR. CHAPLIN

The hon. Member will find by referring to the Bill that pastoral holdings are already included within its provisions. Sub-section 2 of Clause 1 runs thus:— The expression 'small holding,' for the purposes of this Act shall mean land which appears to the Council to be suitable for agriculture, and exceeds one acre, and either does not exceed 50 acres, or if exceeding 50 acres, is of an annual value, for the purposes of the Income Tax, not exceeding £50. Then, if the hon. Member turns to the definitions in Clause 13, he will find this:— The expressions 'agriculture' and 'cultivation' shall include horticulture, and the use of land for any purpose of husbandry, inclusive of the keeping or breeding of live stock, poultry, or bees, and the growth of fruit, vegetables, and the like. I think it is, therefore, clear that the Bill already carries out what the hon. Member desires.

SIR W. FOSTER

After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(6.10.) MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the words "and exceeds one acre." This Amendment would be rendered unnecessary if the provisions of the Allotments Act were extended to Scotland. I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are willing to extend the Allotments Act to Scotland? Hon. Members representing English constituencies will understand the effect of this Amendment is only necessary for Scotland. We have no Allotments Act, and, therefore, we have no means of obtaining so small a portion of land as under one acre. If Her Majesty's Government intend to extend the Allotments Act to Scotland, I should not press this Amendment to the Bill; but it is of the utmost importance to Scotland that power should be given to the County Councils to obtain land in smaller portions than one acre. I have before me the case of fishermen in large districts of Scotland. They do not require an acre of land, and still they want an allotment in connection with their cottages. I have also before me the case of a large number of agricultural labourers, who require land to build their houses upon, and very often require a bit of land for a garden, but who do not require what we call a "small croft" of two or three acres. I do not think that the excision of these words would do any harm as regards the application of the Bill to England. But I should like, before discussing the Amendment further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture whether Her Majesty's Government intend during this Session to extend the Allotments Act to Scotland? If not, I think the Scotch Members will agree with me that the striking out of these words would, to a large extent, meet our difficulties in Scotland.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the words "and exceeds one acre."—(Mr. Esslemont.)

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

*(6.13.) MR. RITCHIE

My recollection in connection with the Allotments Act is that there was no serious desire expressed by the Scotch Members to extend the provisions of that Bill to Scotland. As regards obtaining small pieces of land for the purpose of building houses, we did not consider that a provision of this kind should be introduced into the Allotments Act. There were undoubtedly sympathetic views expressed by the Government as regards the extension of the Allotments Act to Scotland. There is no objection whatever on the part of the Government, I am sure, to extend the principle of the Allotments Act to Scotland. We would be very glad if we were in a position to do so; but I am afraid I would only be deceiving the House if I gave any assurance that we could by any possibility do it during the present Session. My right hon. Friend would be unable under any circumstances to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid, judging from the attitude assumed by the Scotch Members during the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, when it was proposed to extend to Scotland the benefit of the provisions with regard to allotments already accorded to England, it would not be possible to pass a Bill extending the Allotments Act to Scotland this Session.

(6.17.) MR. ESSLEMONT

I have no fault to find with the right hon. Gentleman in so far as he has stated what has taken place in this House. But I may say that I was distinctly given to understand by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that if the Scotch Members expressed a desire to have the Allotments Act extended to Scotland, Her Majesty's Government was willing to do so during the present Session. I only want the right hon. Gentleman to go a little further with regard to this matter. We have expressed repeatedly a desire to have this Act extended to Scotland, and the Scotch Members have from time to time been diverted by promises which have never been fulfilled. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that I have repeatedly by question brought this matter forward. So far as I think will be essential, I am supported by very many hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies in Scotland as to the desirability of dealing with small allotments for the purposes I have mentioned. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government can be in no doubt as to the desire of the Scotch Members on this matter. I hope, therefore, the Scotch Members will have an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon this Amendment, unless Her Majesty's Government goes a good deal further than it has gone on this occasion. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has returned to his place, and I hope he will give us some more satisfactory assurance than we have got from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board on this subject.

(6.18.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am sorry I was not in the House when the hon. Gentleman raised this point. As I understand, he has said that I gave a pledge this Session that the Allotments Act should be extended to Scotland?

MR. ESSLEMONT

I understood so.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. I think, in answer to a question put by him, I stated that, so far as the Government were concerned, we were prepared to introduce a Bill for the purpose of extending to Scotland the provisions of the Allotments Act already passed for England if the discussion upon it would not be unduly prolonged. Of course, we could not promise that any lengthened time should be given for the discussion of the Bill; but I am prepared to introduce a Bill similar to that which has already been passed for England. I do not see that it will be necessary to introduce any special features into the Bill, except those rendered necessary by the different laws of the two countries. I hope it will be allowed to pass practically without prolonged discussion. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the Bill will be introduced during this present Session.

(6.22.) DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I think it would be better to move this Amendment in connection with Clauses 3 and 4, which only relate to Scotland—and then we should have the power given to one authority in Scotland—namely, the County Councils. As to the extension of the Allotments Act to Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was not quite accurate in the information which he gave the House, and which was very different from that just given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No.

MR. RITCHIE

What I said was that I was afraid, from the attitude taken up by the Scotch Members on the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, that when we attempted to extend to Scotland the benefit of the provisions of the Allotment Act already accorded to England, it would not be possible to pass the Bill this Session.

DR. CLARK

When the Act was passing through the House I had an Amendment down extending it to Scotland; and I pointed out, as we are doing now, the desirability of its being extended to Scotland. I withdrew my Amendment in the Committee stage upon the distinct pledge which was given that the Government would consider between the Committee stage and the Report stage the phraseology necessary to apply it to Scotland. And then, when it came to the Report stage, I withdrew my Amendment on a distinet pledge being given that a Bill on the same lines would be introduced for Scotland. On several occasions I myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire pressed the matter on the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and he gave us to understand that he would introduce a Bill. But I think a vague Bill introduced conditionally will not be satis- factory. I think my hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment now, and then move it when we come to Clause 3 or 4, the Scotch clauses, which are different from the English clauses. That power should be given to the County Councils in Scotland, because the conditions with regard to the Local Authorities are different in Scotland from what they are in England.

*(6.25.) MR. CHAPLIN

I am afraid the Amendment of the hon. Member, if adopted, would not carry out the object he has in view so effectively as the extension of the Allotments Act to Scotland, which we all desire to see accomplished. My right hon. Friend has stated in unqualified and definite terms, and not in a conditional manner, that a Bill for that purpose will be introduced during the present Session, and it will be carried, if possible, to its conclusion.

MR. C. S. PARKER (Perth)

I quite agree that the way proposed by the Government appears to be the best; but I should like to know when the Bill will be produced, as hon. Members would be naturally anxious to see it as soon as possible, with the view of ascertaining whether further Amendments may not be required. Scotch Members are usually practical, and I think if the Government were in a position to indicate the time when the Bill would be laid before the House for their consideration, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen would probably withdraw his Amendment, and perhaps hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would not press their Amendments.

*MR. CHAPLIN

I cannot fix a precise date, but I have no doubt that the Bill can be brought forward before the present Bill is disposed of. I hope this will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

MR. ESSLEMONT

Under the circumstances I think the statements of the right hon. Gentleman are satisfactory, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(6.28.) MR. STEPHENS (Middlesex, Hornsey)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out "one," and insert "half-an." I hope the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to accept this Amendment. I think it will come to be felt that it is unnecessary to create any tenure inferior to freehold. An agricultural labourer can acquire half-an-acre of land; but he cannot acquire one acre of land. Putting the land at £40 an acre, all he would have to furnish to get half-an-acre of land would be £5. I know that in Wiltshire agricultural labourers have no difficulty in paying their rates, which very often amount to £5, in one sum. To enable him to acquire one acre of land he would want £10, and he would want £10 more to stock that land. In the case of half-an-acre he would want nothing more than the £5; he would not require to stock it. And, even if he can save this £10 towards acquiring the stock, then he is unable to cultivate an acre of land, while he will be quite able to cultivate half-an-acre. I think it may be broadly stated that the half-acre marks the division between the spade and the plough. There is no middle to be created between this Bill and the Allotments Bill, because the Allotments Bill does not offer the facilities which are wanted. It does not give him security of tenure. In these allotments, land is very often let to labourers just when it is in a transition state. That is especially the case in my constituency, where building operations are often impending on a pretty extensive scale. I think this Amendment ought to be recommended by the fact that it would very largely extend the operations of the Bill. It would give the agricultural labourer that advantage which would enable him not to be entirely dependent upon wage-earning, and in that sense, perhaps, would do more than anything else to stop rural depopulation, which we all know is one of the objects of the Bill. I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that this Amendment does not in any way touch the principle of his Bill, and I trust he will accept it.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the word "one," and insert the words "half-an."—(Mr. Stephens.)

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

*(6.34.) MR. CHAPLIN

I would point out to my hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment that what he desires by it is already provided for under the Allotments Act. And even if it were not the case, I should find myself confronted with the same practical difficulty that I should have been met with in adopting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Esslemont). I hope that my hon. Friend behind me will not press the Amendment, but that after the explanation I have given him that his object is already provided for he will withdraw it.

(6.36.) MR. STEPHENS

It does not, by any means, mean the same thing, because no one has contended that the process of turning land into gold is likely to take place under the Allotments Act. That is reserved for this Bill, and it is for the purpose of turning this half-acre of land into gold that I moved the Amendment; but if the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept it, I will not put the House to any unnecessary trouble, but will withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(6.37.) MR. STEPHENS

I think the argument for my next Amendment is an exceedingly strong one. The House will see that under the Bill there are provided two bases of limit, one of 50 acres, or, if exceeding 50 acres, of the value of £50 a-year. I think it ought to be explained satisfactorily to the House why these two bases are put in. £50 value seems to be the intention of the Bill, but we know that with regard to 50 acres a £50 value will not be the limit of the Bill at all. It is very probable that pasture land in the neighbourhood of towns will be dear, and of a value far exceeding £50. Fifty acres of such land will probably be worth £150, and I submit that, in that case, you will be helping persons who must have a capital of something like £2,000. Persons with that amount of money are not persons to be so assisted out of the rates. Not only that, but under the present arrangement you throw across the path of the County Council a very undesirable temptation. I am quite sure a temptation of that kind would result in much undesirable speculation. If the County Council enter into the creation of farm holdings of that size and of that great value, the penny rate will do so very little that the creation of agricultural holdings will become quite a curiosity. No one has been able to suggest even an explanation for so very singular a provision as this. I do hope it has been a matter which has really been overlooked, and that the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to simplify the limit.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 16, to leave out from the word "acre," to end of Clause, and insert the words "and does not exceed an annual value, for the purposes of the income tax, of fifty pounds."—(Mr. Stephens.)

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

*(6.39.) MR. CHAPLIN

My hon. Friend asks me—and asks me very fairly—to state the reasons by which I was guided in selecting the 50 acres and the sum of £50 as an arbitrary limit—for it is an arbitrary limit—of what a small holding should consist of. The reason was this. It carries out the recommendation of the Select Committee. They came to the conclusion that that would be the most convenient definition of a small holding. I admit that it is open to the objection that the hon. Member has pointed out; but the cases to which he has referred would be more or less rare, and, on the whole, I thought it best to adopt the recommendation of the Committee, which I will read— Your Committee understand by 'small holdings' agricultural tenancies or cultivating ownerships not exceeding fifty acres in extent or £50 annual valuation. Owing to the varying quality of land it is impossible to fix any particular acreage as sufficient for the support of a family. But your Committee believe that land of from £30 to £50 valuation will generally be adequate for that purpose. That is the reason why I put it into the Bill. I do not know that I need offer any further reason.

(6.41.) MR. BARCLAY

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will re-consider the necessity of having two limits. The real limit is the value, and I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should leave out the question of 50 acres, and allow the limit to stand upon the value.

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

The point is that if a man has less than 50 acres, the annual value may be anything at all; but if he happens to have more than 50 acres, the annual value must not be more than £50. Surely that is an anomaly, and I think my right hon. Friend will do well to see whether he cannot leave out the limitation to 50 acres.

*(6.43.) MR. WHITBREAD (Bedford)

I hope the Government will not be induced to enlarge the scope of their Bill in the direction of giving larger holdings than the Bill already provides. I think if the Bill errs at all, it errs in the direction of having the holdings too large already. I quite understand the policy of giving large allotments or small holdings to the labouring population, because it would accomplish some very good objects. It would, first of all, increase the productiveness of the land; it would, in the second place, prevent the agricultural labourers flocking into the towns, and would fix them on the soil; and, in the third place, it would add greatly to their comfort. But when you go beyond that class, I do not know upon what principle we are called to establish a class of small capitalists. The two cases are totally different. Up to, say, ten acres—it depends, of course, upon the nature of the soil—a man can work an allotment himself; but when you get up to 50 acres, he must be an employer of labour, and you would have this absurdity—that the very labourers that he was employing would be taxed by the Council in order to get for him his holding. I think that will lead to anything but a pleasant feeling in our county districts. Let me refer to another point. Everybody who has travelled through the country districts must have been struck with the enormous increase of production from allotments as compared with large farms. That is due mainly to two causes. It is due to the abundant labour and care which the allotment holder is enabled to bestow upon his small plot, but there is another and a much more potent cause, and that is that the allotment holder only touches his land when it is fit to be touched—he only goes upon it at a time when the conditions of climate and soil are such that he can beneficially work it. The farmer is obliged to go on his soil at a time when it would not be advisable to touch it, because he cannot keep his men and horses idle. In my belief that is the great cause of the increased productiveness of the allotment over the large farm. But the moment you get a holding over ten acres, the moment a man becomes what he really would be with a holding of 50 acres, a small farmer, he has to work under the conditions under which the farmer now works, and the increased productiveness of the soil would disappear. For these reasons I protest against being called upon to tax the poorer labourers for the sake of establishing somebody on the land who is supposed to be a fine Conservative voter, and who is to remind us of the yeoman of the past. He is a capitalist, and he can establish himself now, if he has got the money. If he has not got the money, I object to lending him the funds of the County Council.

*(6.48.) MR. WINTERBOTHAM

I think, now that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has read the words of the recommendation of the Committee, he will see that the Committee did not contemplate the words being put as they are in the Clause. I appeal to the hon. Member opposite (Sir John Dorington) whether there is any good land in the Vale of the Severn which is let under 40s. to 50s. an acre? A man, if he has under this Bill a holding of 40 acres there, might have to pay a rental of £120. But directly you get to the hill country, where the land is poor, if he has a holding one rood exceeding 50 acres, then he must be limited to a rental of £50. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not contemplate an anomaly like that. I think the Amendment which limits the small holding to the annual value of £50, and leaves out the words "or if exceeding 50 acres," is the best way of meeting the question. I fully endorse what was said by the last speaker, that it would be found quite big enough for any small holdings to be established at the expense or guarantee of the ratepayers, at all events as a first experiment.

(6.50.) MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I thought, until I heard my hon. Friend just now, that we were preparing a Bill that would form a ladder for the labourer to enable him to become a yeoman farmer. This Bill, as it stands, enables him to hire ten acres; he is then allowed to buy more, and if he is successful, he will be allowed to get up to 50 acres. If I could make it a little more I should, instead of trying to curtail it. The Amendment seems to be that a man, no matter how energetic and saving he is, or how long he may have cultivated his little holding, is to be debarred from having more than £50 worth of land per annum.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

From the ratepayers.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

It is not from the ratepayers, who will be subject to no loss. I do hope my hon. Friends around me will not curtail this Bill in any such way. I do not think the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), that these farmers will all be Conservatives, will be quite realised. I, for my part, do not care whether they are Conservatives or anything else. (Cheers.) Yes; but I do care very strongly about fixing any limitation to the prospects of the rural population; thus virtually telling them that no matter what their perseverance, labour, or savings, we shall impose a limit of £50 or £40, or, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said, 20 acres of land.

MR. WHITBREAD

No.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

At any rate, it is proposed to make it no higher than £50. If there is any alteration at all, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should keep the 50 acres and limit the value to £75 or £80, so that a man should be able to get 50 acres, even although they cost a rent of 30s. an acre. That would be a fair limit.

(6.53.) MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

I am quite sure we on this side of the House have no desire whatever to curtail the Bill against the interests of the agricultural labourer. On the contrary, we desire to make it as good as possible for him, but I am satisfied that he will, in the main, be interested in those ten acre holdings which he may hire and not buy. Not one labouring man in 50,000 will be able to buy his holding. This Bill does not merely propose a limit of £50 a year. There will be the possibility of a man holding 50 acres of land worth £3 or £4 an acre, involving thus about £150 a year. In the parish in which I live—a purely agricultural parish — all the land is worth between £100 and £150 an acre; and under this Bill, therefore, it will be possible to go up to 50 acres, involving a very large transaction on the part of the County Council, as well as a great outlay which would limit the operation of the Bill in other directions. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) that these large holdings, creating farmers of a substantial character, do really not come within the purview of the Bill; and that in order to restrict the Bill to the class requiring it the Amendment should be adopted. There might be some money limitation—such as that suggested by the hon. Member for Bordesley—so as to preclude large operations and the purchases of land of very great magnitude.

*(6.56.) SIR W. FOSTER

As a Member of the Select Committee responsible for the twofold limitation, I desire to explain to the Committee what was in the mind of the Select Committee on the matter. I think hon. Gentlemen who are discussing this Clause are forgetting that this Bill has, I hope, a future as well as a present application, and that it is desired that those who have now only small patches of 5, 10, or 15 acres, may, if they are prosperous, have an opportunity of obtaining a larger area to cultivate, and should keep that prospect before them. The Select Committee had two classes of land in view. First, those districts where the land is worth £4 or £5 an acre in rent. We limit the purchase of that land to £50 a year, and place the holders of it in the position of never having more than some twelve acres which, in the case of practically garden ground, is as much as they could personally cultivate. Then in Scotland, and, perhaps, Essex, where land is cheap, he limit of £50 would come in and give the holder a larger tract partly pasture. But in both cases the intention of the Committee was to try to keep the holding such as the holder and his family would be able to cultivate. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will stick to the Clause, with its double definition, as it meets a great number of cases.

(6.58.) MR. R. T. REID

While I have always been in favour of the limit of 50 acres, I should like to point out to the Committee the difference between the Report of the Select Committee and the use made of their recommendation in this Bill. The Committee recommended this as a maximum limit, because upon their recommendation the Local Authority was to derive a specific pecuniary benefit from the application of public money. But the very serious proposal of the Bill is to embark public money to the extent of £50 a year for the benefit of an individual. This is an almost novel proposal. I am not aware that in any previous legislation it has been proposed that you should authorise the application of public money to the extent of £2,000 or £1,000 on so large a scale for the benefit of people who have not been shown to require it for the public advantage I desire to point out to the House what the consequence will be if the proposal of the Government is adopted. It will be less formidable to me and to some of my hon. Friends than it may be to hon. Gentlemen opposite. If you are prepared to advance public money before you set up in business a man who may be able to pay a rent of £50 a year, or more, without requiring from him any equivalent, I am sure that hereafter, and perhaps before long, we may use this as a very valuable precedent for the purpose of suggesting that there are other persons more in need of such assistance; and I would remind hon. Members that this is not the first valuable precedent that has been established for us by the present Government.

(7.2.) SIR J. DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

Looking at the clause as it stands, I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman would do wisely in accepting the Amendment. Then there would be no mistake as to the effect of the proposal, and we should avoid difficulties which may otherwise arise.

*(7.3.) MR. MARJORIBANKS (Berwickshire)

Speaking in the interest of Scottish small holders I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take out the words proposed in the Amendment. I have consulted a large number of persons mostly interested in this question, and their opinion is that the fifty acre limit is too small. The limit of acreage they would have is that upon which they could fully employ a pair of horses. Now fifty acres is not enough for that purpose. It would be necessary to take sixty, or seventy, or even eighty acres in order to give sufficient work to a pair of horses. The Scotch agricultural labourer would like to have a holding of sixty to eighty acres; and anything less than that limit will diminish the advantages to be conferred by the Bill so far as Scotland is concerned.

(7.5.) MR. STEPHENS

I would point out that my Amendment does not limit the acreage of the land to be taken; but when you go up to £50 value I think it is time the ladder should stop. The point is whether you should go beyond the £50 or not. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

(7.6.) MR. THOMAS ELLIS

I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not omit the words objected to by the hon. Member. I believe that the Bill may be made the means of removing a great deal of the injustice which now exists in connection with the disposal of farms. The majority of County Councils would no doubt adhere to the limit of £50, but it would be extremely hard if a tenant with sixty acres with a rent of £49 should have an advantage over his neighbour who happens to have a smaller acreage of average land at a little higher rental.

*(7.8.) MR. CHAPLIN

There is a good deal to be said upon both sides of the question, but I cannot accept the Amendment, and the Committee are now in a position to deal with it.

Question put, and agreed to.

(7.11.) MR. THOMAS ELLIS

I beg to move— In page 1, line 17, after "acres," insert "exclusive of any common grazing or sheepwalk attached or appurtenant thereto. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the inclusion of these words, so as to bring within the scope of the Bill those tenants who may have a comparatively small acreage but who may also have the use of an adjoining sheepwalk. I believe if the addition I propose were made, it would confer benefit on a considerable number of small tenants in Wales.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 17, after the word "acres," to insert the words "exclusive of any common grazing or sheepwalk attached or appurtenant thereto."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)

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

*(7.13.) MR. CHAPLIN

My objection to this Amendment is that it would increase the power of the County Council to provide land to an indefinite extent, and I am, therefore, unable to accept it.

(7.14.) MR. THOMAS ELLIS

I think it would be putting the tenants who have a comparatively small acreage to a great disadvantage to adopt the clause as it now stands.

(7.15.) SIR J. BAILEY (Hereford)

I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment, even if it is confined in its operation to Wales. All Welshmen will bear me out when I say that almost all the farmers in Wales have the right to a sheepwalk upon the adjoining hills, and that this sheepwalk is never measured with the farm.

(7.17.) MR. AINSLIE (Lancashire, N. Lonsdale)

I hope that this Amendment will be made to apply not only to Wales, but to all parts of the kingdom; and that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept it.

*MR. CHAPLIN

I cannot accept the Amendment, but I will undertake to consider it between now and the Report stage.

MR. THOMAS ELLIS

Then I will ask permission to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(7.22.) MR. BARCLAY

I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out "fifty," and insert "seventy-five." It is the great ambition of the agricultural labourer in Scotland to have a small holding, and I hope we shall be able to make such arrangements under this Bill as will enable the Council to let small holdings on convenient tenure. The tenant could be asked to put down a certain amount of premium, or to pay so much in the first few years, so as to secure the County Council against loss. The Bill should not limit the powers of the County Council. I hope that the Government will allow the Councils to exercise a certain amount of discretion, so that the holder may have sufficient land upon which to employ two horses.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out the word "fifty," and insert the words "seventy-five."—(Mr. Barclay.)

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

(7.25.) SIR W. B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, North West)

I hope my right hon. Friend will not agree to go beyond the limit mentioned in the Bill. I believe it would be most unwise to do so.

(7.26.) MR. H. GARDNER (Essex, Saffron Walden)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley has said that the sole purpose of the Bill is to create a yeoman class.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I did not say that was its sole purpose. I said it would enable labourers to become yeomen.

MR. H. GARDNER

I think the hon. Member said the main purpose of the Bill was to create a yeoman class. Now I have had an opportunity of speaking to agricultural labourers during the past fortnight, and they have told me that they cannot see how they could ever hope to become yeomen in the sense referred to. They are, however, anxious to have small holdings, and I hope, therefore, the Amendment will be accepted.

*MR. CHAPLIN

I cannot accept the Amendment. The limit of £50 was adopted on the recommendation of the Select Committee, and I think we must adhere to it.

(7.28.) DR. CLARK

I do not see why we should limit the holding to the rent of £50. The desire is to have sufficient land upon which to employ two horses. If a man has less than that he can only keep one horse. A much better class of farming is done upon a holding upon which two horses are employed, and I therefore hope the Amendment will be accepted.

*SIR J. KINLOCH

The limit of fifty is quite unsuitable for Scotland. Indeed, this Bill will not do our agriculturists the least good, for they are not the men who take very small holdings. The only thing that will do in Scotland will be the one pair farms, which would necessitate raising the limit to £75, or even £100.

MR. STEPHENS

It appears that it is now desirable to drop the fifty and to increase it to one hundred. But if that be so, I must point out that, having this limit of a penny rate, you will restrict the operation of the Bill immensely Indeed, I wonder how many men could face a constituency and say this was a Bill for the relief of the agricultural population.

MR. R. T. REID

I desire to say that the smaller holdings are looked for in that part of the country of which we have had experience. For my part, I must say that I am not prepared to spend public money for the purpose of setting up farmers.

*SIR W. FOSTER

I do feel in the interests of the passage of the Bill that we ought not to allow the amount to grow, and I would ask that the Amendment should not be pressed.

DR. CLARK

If the wording means that there might be forty acres, say at 30s. or £2 per acre—that if above fifty acres it is not to exceed £50, and if below may exceed that amount—then the clause in its present form will suit me, because I do not want to go beyond fifty acres for that class of land. If that is the construction the Government place upon the definition of small holdings in Clause 1, I think it will satisfy us.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. THOMAS ELLIS

I beg to move— In page 1, line 18, after "pounds," add,—"(3.) Where common or grazing land or sheepwalk shall attach or be appurtenant to or be held or enjoyed with any land acquired by the County Council under this Act, and the County Council shall divide the land so acquired for separate holdings, then a pro- portionate part of such common or grazing land or sheepwalk shall be set aside for each separate holding. In many pastoral Welsh districts small farms have in years past been consolidated into one large farm, with the result that each farmer obtains not merely the small tenancies, but also the pasture among the mountains. Suppose, in the operation of this Bill, a County Council, on the application of a certain number of labourers or small farmers, acquired a large farm, and that this large farm had attached to it certain acreage of common grazing or sheepwalk, if the County Council were to take a certain amount of land in the valley without also taking what was attached to it—the common grazing or sheepwalk—the real object of this Bill would be defeated. The Amendment simply means that in case a large farm is cut up for small holdings, the mountain land attaching to that farm shall be set aside in proportion to the small holdings created.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 18, after "pounds," add,—"(3.) Where common or grazing land or sheepwalk shall attach or be appurtenant to or be held or enjoyed with any land acquired by the County Council under this Act, and the County Council shall divide the land so acquired for separate holdings, then a proportionate part of such common or grazing land or sheepwalk shall be set aside for each separate holding."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)

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

*MR. CHAPLIN

What I understand the hon. Member to propose is that where the County Council may require land for the purpose of small holdings in districts where there is common and grazing land, and, having acquired it have divided it into small holdings, they shall at the same time set apart a portion of the sheep grazing land for each of these particular holdings. I listened to the hon. Member with deference because of his close knowledge of Welsh affairs, but I have two points to submit to him. In the first place, if he makes it obligatory on the County Council to do this, is it not possible that on some occasions there may be a purchaser, or would-be purchaser, who may desire to have his holding without grazing land; and, in the second place, is it not sufficient to leave this matter to the discretion of the County Councils? These are points which I should like to submit to the hon. Member for his consideration. If, then, he desires to press the point, I shall ask him, in reference to this particular Amendment, to do what we agreed in a previous case—to let me consider the subject and make suggestions upon Report.

DR. CLARK

This will affect the Highlands of Scotland equally with Wales. Unless you have a change of the kind proposed, it will be almost impossible for the small holder to make a living. As it is necessary that the holder should have the grazing land during the summer, and the lowland during the winter—that the sheep may be fed while the snow is on the ground—there should be a concurrent division of the two classes of land. This, as was done by the Crofters' Commission, will be absolutely necessary for the Highlands. The North of England, too, will be affected. In view of these matters, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will either adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend, or, when he draws up a modified clause, will insert a recognition of this proposition. In my opinion, it will be requisite that these large tracks should not be divided, as the cost of division will be great, and as there is a desire that the system of co-operation should be in operation.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

Although it may be desirable that something should be done, I venture to suggest that we ought to accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman, and allow him to consider the subject.

SIR J. BAILEY

I desire to disassociate myself from the hon. Member's propositions with regard to the commons.

MR. THOMAS ELLIS

I did not submit my Motion at all in regard to commons in the ordinary acceptance of the word. I referred to the grazing land on the mountains, and to the sheepwalk which is commonly attached to the farm.

SIR J. BAILEY

But common land in Wales is common not to the particular farm which is divided, but common to the whole. If the hon. Member intends to devote a certain marked piece to each holder, I wish to say, in my judgment, that is impracticable. If, on the contrary, he means to divide and enclose it, then I say he is ousting the rights of the lord of the manor and owners, and making a very serious alteration in the law—an alteration going far beyond the motive of this Bill.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid)

My hon. Friend does not propose that the land shall be divided for each particular plot. He asks that provision should be made in favour of the purchaser of every small holding that he may have the right which had attached to the land up to that time, but only the common or grazing land on the mountain. I really wish to press home the fact that in Wales this is a very important matter indeed. Unless something of the kind is done the tenant of a small holding might be obliged to keep his cattle indoors during hay season; so that the loss of grazing rights would be serious. But if the clause were passed, it would then be obligatory on the County Council to meet that contingency. I do not know whether some alteration might not be made in order to make the matter optional; yet, so far as the Welsh tenants are concerned I do not think there would be a single one who would require a small holding without also requiring the grazing land. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will either now meet the views of my hon. Friend or will, on Report, bring up such a clause as will carry out our views on this matter.

*MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.)

I think the matter had much better be left to the right hon. Gentleman to bring up in a clause on Report. I understand the hon. Member desires that where a County Council acquires any considerable quantity of land which carries with it the right of sheep pasture, the latter shall be distributed among those holders who shared in the purchase. I think that is very desirable indeed. As I understand the Amendment, there is no contemplation to rail or fence in any part of the common.

MR. THOMAS ELLIS

In order that my meaning may not be misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) I will give a case. Suppose we had a farm of 200 acres in the low-lands. As a rule it would carry with it the right of pasture for 600 sheep over the mountains. Now, if the County Council should cut this farm up into four of 50 acres each, would it not be ridiculous to leave the former tenant, who is allowed to retain 50 acres, the right of the pasture whilst the three other tenants had none? No County Council would be able to let such a farm without this right of grazing, and unless some such Amendment as this is passed, I do not see how the Council can attach that right. I am quite willing that the right hon. Gentleman should consider this question and bring it up at a later stage, but I should like a promise that he will accept the spirit of the proposal.

*MR. CHAPLIN

I sympathise with the view of the hon. Member, and I will undertake to carefully consider the question.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2.

MR. CHANNING

I beg to move, in line 1, after the word "sale" to add "or letting," so as to extend the scope of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I beg to move the following Amendment:—In page 2, line 11, to leave out from "holding" to end of sub-section. The words proposed to be left out are, "and cannot be made by the purchaser or tenant." I think these words contain a grave statement, because a purchaser or tenant might be able, at a great sacrifice, to put up these buildings. At the same time it might be far better if the work were done for him, or the necessary money advanced for the purpose, thus leaving him so much more capital to be employed in cultivating his land. At any rate, I would leave the matter to the discretion of the County Council. This is only an enabling clause, and therefore I would not hamper them with being obliged to determine whether the purchaser could or could not do this.

*MR. CHAPLIN

I take it that it is desirable the holders or tenants should put up these buildings themselves, but when that is not possible, and only in those cases, do I feel it wise to cast upon the County Council the performance of that duty.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I do not attach much importance to this Amendment except that it seemed to be necessary to prepare the way for another Amendment of mine which follows. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I will ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I now beg to move the following Amendment:— In page 2, line 12, at the end of the Clause, to add the words: "(4.) The County Council may also make to any person acquiring from such Council under this Act any Small Holding, loans for buildings or other improvements on such holding. (5.) Terms of repayment of such loans shall be so arranged that the loans and all interest thereon shall be paid off within a period not exceediug thirty-five years from the making of such loans. (6.) Any such loans shall be a charge on the small holding in respect of which such loan is made, next in priority after any other sums due in respect thereof to the County Council. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment, which, I think, is of the utmost importance. If hon. Members consider what took place before the Select Committee, they will find that the majority of witnesses pointed out the necessity for provision being made for the erection of buildings. Lord Wantage, in the course of his evidence, said that it would cost him, as a landowner, twice as much to put up buildings and make the necessary repairs as it would the man who had a small holding. No doubt the buildings on his Lordship's estate would be of a needlessly expensive character for a small man. I know if you leave a small holder to himself, and let him find out his wants, he will make buildings such as will fulfil his purposes at a cost, including his labour, so small that you can scarcely estimate it. What I propose is, not to forbid the County Councils to erect these buildings, but to leave it to their discretion. I think that, under certain circumstances, the Councils might advance a sum of money to the small holder to enable him to put up buildings such as would suit him. That might not be quite the case if the Councils do the work themselves. Such loans would be of quite a different character from the loans on the land because buildings wear out, and, therefore, the suggestion is that they shall be paid for by annual instalments during 35 years, and that the money so advanced shall be a charge on the small holding next in priority after any other sums due to the County Council by such owner. I am quite sure that the difficulty of erecting buildings for small holders will be a great drawback, unless the right hon. Gentleman will consent to some such proposal as this.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 12, at the end of the clause, to add the words,—"(4.) The County Council may also make to any person acquiring from such Council under this Act any small holding, loans for buildings or other improvements on such holding. (5.) Terms of repayment of such loans shall be so arranged that the loans and all interest thereon shall be paid off within a period not exceeding thirty-five years from the making of such loans. (6.) Any such loan shall be a charge on the small holding in respect of which such loan is made, next in priority after any other sums due in respect thereof to the County Council."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)

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

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I wish to confirm what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said. From my own experience of small holdings in my own neighbourhood, I think the question of cheapering the provision of essential buildings is a very important one. It is within my knowledge that small holders can erect buildings quite adequate for their purpose much cheaper than is likely to be the case if the County Councils take the work in hand. This Amendment I consider to be a very wise one. I do not think the County Councils would be deterred from carrying the provisions of this Bill into effect, because of the introduction of this proposal. On the contrary, I think they will see that the security is ample, and that they are furthering their own interest in promoting the interest of the smallholders.

(8.10.) MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

I think the proposal contained in the Amendment will be, to a large extent, provided for by a subsequent clause, which enables the County Council to make allowances for the erection of buildings. This is Sub-section 6 of Clause 5, which reads as follows:— The Council may, if they think fit, agree to postpone for a term not exceeding five years the time for payment of all or any part of an instalment either of principal or interest, or of a terminable annuity in consideration of expenditure by the purchaser which, in the opinion of the Council, increases the value of the holding, but shall do so on such terms as will, in their opinion, prevent them from incurring any loss. This surely goes a long way to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman. If a man who has a plot of land is unable to put up buildings, the County Council can postpone his payments for five years and allow him to use the money in the erection of buildings.

(8.11.) MR. R. T. REID

I think the provisions pointed out by my hon. Friend opposite give everything that can in fairness be claimed. I do not know that I am very easily shocked, but I am beginning to ask myself what is to be the end of all this. What is really proposed is that a gentleman who has been favoured by public credit to the extent of acquiring property worth £100 a year or so is, in addition, to have loans for the purpose of erecting farm buildings. Contrast the position of that man with that of a struggling tradesman in the village who wants to increase the size of his shop. That is surely for the benefit of the inhabitants; but that man cannot obtain a loan from the County Council to assist him, and I should like to remind the House that there are small holders who have made their way without the assistance of this Bill. I am thoroughly in sympathy with this Bill, but I think we shall make a most unfair differentiation between two classes of small holders if we allow the man who is now the favourite of the Legislature to receive public money for the erection of his farm buildings, and withhold that advantage from the man who by his own industry and thrift has secured a small holding in the ordinary way, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) will not accept the Amendment.

*(8.13.) MR. CHAPLIN

I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend for reasons which I think must be apparent to the Committee. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire said that the security would be ample, but I do not think this would be the case. Assuming that the proportion of money to be paid down is one-fourth, that is not a very large amount to begin with; and when this subject was considered by the Members, of the Select Committee, an entirely opposite view as to the risk involved on the ratepayers was taken from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will read two sentences from the Report of that Committee— Some witnesses have argued that the Local Authorities should advance money on building improvements, and even on stock. Your Committee cannot adopt this suggestion, which they consider extravagant in the case of stock, and which they believe even in the case of buildings would be attended with great risk. I am bound to say I share that view myself, and I cannot see that the hon. Gentleman has said anything to diminish the fears I entertain with regard to the risks which this will impose, or to diminish the force of our view. The majority of the Select Committee held the view that I have expressed, and I believe that view will also be shared by this Committee. I am sorry I cannot meet my hon. Friend by accepting, his Amendment.

(8.15.) MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

I think we have already gone a long way to benefit the small holder, but my own view is that when once the tenant purchaser has entered into possession he is not entitled to any more consideration than any other farmer. Many farmers would be glad to receive advances from the State to enable them to build houses and farm buildings, and there are many who have not had the advantage of having State money lent to them to purchase their holdings, and I do not see any reason for the proposal contained in the Amendment. I shall not support the Amendment, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has acted wisely in refusing to accept it.

(8.17.) COMMANDER BETHELL

Economically, the hon. Gentleman who has proposed this Amendment is quite right. It is better economy to lend the money to tenants, and allow them to put up the buildings than that the County Council should do the work. I question, however, whether it is advisable that the tenant purchaser should be assisted by public money further than is indicated in the 5th clause.

(8.18.) MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)

I shall vote for the Amendment, because I believe it is one of the most important and most valuable that has been moved in relation to this Bill. I have heard with some surprise the observations of the hon. Members for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) and Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid). I think it is a little late in the day to talk about alarm, and I think it comes with somewhat bad grace from us, who insisted on the Government introducing compulsory powers into their Bill, to complain of this somewhat innocent Amendment of the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Collings). We want to make the Bill as effective as possible, and we recognise the right of demand and the duty of the County Council to make provisions of an exceptional character for the class of tenants pointed out by the Mover of the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) spoke of Sub-section 6 of Clause 5; but if you look at the legislation of other countries upon this subject, particularly of Russia, you will see that the Government have been most careful to make provisions by public loans for the erection of buildings on the small holder's estate, to provide stock, and even to provide seed for the farm. I regret that the Bill does not go further in that direction; but the Mover has justified his Amendment on another ground, and that is, that the tenant himself can do the work at much less expense than it can be done by the Local Authority. We are not asking that the County Council shall have an indirect power in this manner, that they shall be able to make remissions extending over five years, but that they shall have the direct power to make an advance in money—a moderate advance for the purpose of enabling the tenant to erect the necessary buildings. I think the Amendment is a moderate and reasonable one, and I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to give it further consideration.

(8.23.) MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I am loth to detain the Committee, but I am so satisfied that the success of the Bill depends largely on this question of buildings that I would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) to re-consider his decision. I was astonished to hear the remarks of the Member for Bradford, and I think he can scarcely have read the Amendment. He said that the small holder, having, had his buildings put up for him, could not expect any more. It is the man who has not had the buildings that this Amendment is endeavouring to assist. If the County Council think it better to erect the buildings themselves they can do so under this Bill. But they might be disposed to let a small holder, who had sons perhaps to assist him, have a small loan to enable him to put up the buildings that he requires, and he could do it very much cheaper than they could. Perhaps the tenant could not put up all the buildings, but could put up some with a little assistance, and I want to give the County Councils in their judgment and prudence, in which I have the greatest confidence, the power to advance these small sums. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that there is less security, but I think the security is the same. Suppose the County Council erected £100 worth of buildings, they would charge, I suppose, £4 per annum. If the man put up the buildings himself, he would probably only borrow £50, which would reduce the interest to £2, and the buildings, would be there all the same. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks the sub-section of Clause 5 meets the case that I put forward, and I must say I have not yet heard a good and sufficient reason why the County Councils should not be allowed to advance the money. All the economic arguments are in favour of the proposal, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that there is nothing new in my proposal. There is, I maintain, the same security and increased economy, and I do beg the right hon. Gentleman to take the matter into further consideration.

(8.28.) MR. STEPHENS

I should like to point out that the tenant might put up buildings which would not have the effect of increasing the value of the holding, and it is supposed that a County Council would put up buildings which would improve the permanent value. I think the sub-section of Clause 5 is a preferable way of dealing with this matter, because under that there is time for the tenant to have given some proof of his fitness and reliability, and it will not involve the risk that is contained in the Amendment. Hon. Members must remember that we are not dealing with an unlimited fund, and that, on the contrary, we are dealing with a fund which is extremely limited.

(8.29.) MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I would suggest to the Member for Bordesley words which at the beginning of his Amendment would make it clear that what is suggested is an alternative. If he were to preface to his Amendment "Where the County Council do not think fit to provide buildings" these words, or words to this effect, would make it perfectly clear that these loans are not to be in addition to money spent on the erection of buildings. I contend that this will be a more economical manner of doing the work, and I think these words will make it clear what is the real intention of the Amendment.

(8.30.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 123.—(Div. List, No. 111.)

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3.

(9.12.) MR. THOMAS ELLIS

Mr. Chairman, I am very much afraid it is no use explaining this Amendment to the Minister of Agriculture, as the Minister of Agriculture is not present in his place.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. THOMAS ELLIS

The Committee has previously discussed at considerable length the question of giving to the County Council various methods of acquiring land. I am sorry to say the Committee has refused to accept many of the Amendments which were moved from this side of the House to give powers to County Councils to take land on lease, as well as to take it in feu. The Amendment I have to propose, in page 2, line 16, which is to insert the words "occupation or" after "holdings for," raises the question of giving County Councils the right not only to sell land to the labourers or others, but to give them the power to give land on occupation—either to lease it or to hire it—from year to year, or upon any terms the County Council may see fit, under rules to be incorporated in this Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman must admit the strength of the arguments which have been advanced by, I think, the vast majority of Members on this side of the House, by two or three Members on the other side of the House who are very well acquainted with agricultural districts, and also from the members of the various Congresses and Conferences which the right hon. Gentleman has himself attended and addressed during the last two or three months. Naturally I read the reports of these Conferences with very great interest, because one was able to see there the opinions of those who were Conservatives, and also of those who are very anxious to obtain easy access for the labourers to the land. As far as I can remember, many of those who spoke at those Conferences were very anxious that the County Councils should have power under this Bill not only to sell land, but to let it as well; and I think that the arguments which have been brought forward by several on this side of the House, more especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, must have carried conviction to a large number of Members on the other side, that under this Act it will be for a long time impossible for a large number of labourers to buy land out and out. They have not the capital, and even if they had the capital to buy the land, they would not then have enough capital to stock it and to pay the first few instalments of the purchase money. So that if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to carry out the real purport, as it seems to me, of all such Bills as this—namely, the bringing of the labourers into nearer contact with, and the giving them an easier access to, the land, he must give the County Councils some other power than that of selling out and out to the tenant. The right hon. Gentleman, when I moved a previous Amendment, was willing to make a certain concession with regard to this clause. We appreciate very much the concession he made, but, as I read his concession, it simply enables the County Council to let land under ten acres to those who are unable to buy it out and out. What I desire the right hon. Gentleman to do is, not to set up this artificial limit of ten acres, but to give the County Council as wide and general a discretion as possible in the matter. The County Council is not likely to embark on all sorts of risky land speculations. They will be very chary indeed of letting or selling land, except upon good security and with something like a reasonable prospect of repayment, but what I venture to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman is that it is unwise to set up this artificial limit. In some parts of the country ten acres would be quite as much as a labourer could deal with, but in other parts of the country, where the soil is very thin, the labourer could not possibly obtain a decent subsistence out of ten acres. Twenty or thirty acres let to him, especially if it were let in connection with certain grazing land on the mountain side, would enable the labourer to start as a peasant farmer, and to get enough money gradually to become the owner of the land, or of some other land, at the disposal of the County Council. Such a process as that is the process for which we have been looking for many years, and a process which the right hon. Gentleman desires to give by means of this Bill. I am sure he cannot give it, unless he accepts an Amendment enabling the County Council not only to sell land, but also to let land up to fifty acres. Now, it may be said it is a very risky experiment for the County Council to become landowners, but it seems to me that a certain element of risk is contained in any transaction whatever with regard to land on the part of the County Council. But once you do away with this fear of risk, I think we could very well trust the County Council to draw up such rules as will make the risk as small as possible. The County Council may, by means of these rules, enable the labourer to lease land for thirty or forty or fifty years at what he might consider thoroughly fair and reasonable terms; or, on the other hand, it might give a shorter lease, or even an ordinary year to year tenancy. What I wish by this Amendment is to give the County Council as large a discretion, and as large a liberty as possible to carry out what I consider to be the main purpose of the Bill—namely, to make it easier for the labourers to obtain access to the land of this country.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, after the words "holdings for," to insert the words "occupation or."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)

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

*(9.23.) MR. CHAPLIN

I listened with great attention to everything the hon. Gentleman said, and I do not think upon this point there is any wide difference of opinion between us, although we desire to arrive at the same end, I acknowledge, by somewhat different means. The discussion which the hon. Gentleman invites us to enter upon in this Amendment is really a repetition of the discussion which was conducted at very considerable length upon Clause 1 of the Bill. The hon. Member refers to the numerous Conferences which have been held in different parts of the country, at some of which I have been present myself, to meet a number of people of all classes interested in this question. Then he says, so far as he can judge from the reports, he has gathered that the great majority of these people were unanimously in favour of hiring rather than of purchasing land.

MR. THOMAS ELLIS

I did not say the majority, but a large number of them.

*MR. CHAPLIN

I beg pardon. The hon. Gentleman said a large number of them were in favour of hiring rather than purchasing.

MR. THOMAS ELLIS

As well as purchasing.

*MR. CHAPLIN

Within certain limits I acknowledge that is perfectly true. There are, and there always will be, a certain number—probably a large number—of agricultural labourers and others in the country districts whose means will not enable them to buy land, however desirous they may be of doing so. Consequently, being perfectly alive to that fact myself, it was one of my first duties, in considering the framing of this Bill, to devise some means by which that difficulty might be overcome. I think I shall be able to show the Committee that the difficulty has been clearly and substantially dealt with; and when the mode in which it is dealt with was explained to the various classes at these Conferences I do not recollect a single occasion upon which the methods proposed in the Bill of the Government did not give complete and entire satisfaction. I will not repeat what I said on the introduction of the Bill with regard to the desire of the Government that in the first instance it should, if possible, create owners, rather than tenants of land. There are numerous good reasons why I think that object is desirable which will commend themselves to the Committee—reasons which, had I been in order, I should have stated at some length to the Committee on the first clause, and which were dealt with at no inconsiderable length by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) to-night. But as I have the charge of this measure, perhaps it is desirable that I should point out to the Committee some of these reasons. In the first place, if the Local Authorities are to let the land instead of selling it to purchasers, they begin by losing what, after all, is the chief security against loss to the ratepayers—namely, the proportion of the purchase money which the Bill requires shall be paid upon the completion of the purchase; and you will, to that extent, undoubtedly increase the risks which have been frequently referred to in the course of the debate this afternoon as being imposed upon the ratepayers. The next difficulty I find is this—a difficulty which also has been constantly referred to to-night—the provision of the buildings. How are the buildings to be provided if the land is to be let? It must be obvious that if the land is let it must be upon either a yearly tenancy or a lease. If it is to be let upon yearly tenancy it is perfectly clear that the tenants cannot erect the buildings, and that that duty undoubtedly must fall upon the Local Authority. If, on the other hand, it is let upon lease, I admit that it would be perfectly possible for the tenants themselves to provide the buildings, but, if they did, would it not be infinitely preferable, in their own interests, that instead of being leaseholders they should purchase the land, because the difference between what they would have to pay as rent and what they would have to pay as instalment upon the purchase money would be very inconsiderable? They might possibly pay something less as rent, but if they bought the land and paid a trifling addition in the form of instalments, every year would be bringing them nearer to the time when not only the land but the buildings upon it became their own. I think I have shown two good reasons upon the point of buildings alone. Surely it is more desirable that the new holders should be owners instead of tenants. I now come to the consideration of the next question, and that is whether the Local Authorities in this country are well calculated to occupy the position of landlords. Everyone knows how numerous, important, and difficult the duties of a landlord are—and it must be seen that they would be enormously increased for a Local Authority—and what an army of agents, bailiffs, and surveyors would be required for the management of their estates, which would perhaps be situated in all parts of the county. Not a gate would require to be hung, not a drain to be made, or any other trifling matter to be attended to without the Local Authority being called upon to deal with it; and I submit that they would not be able to undertake this responsibility with anything like the economy and advantage with which it could be done by the landlord. Then, again, everybody knows what happens to a landlord when his tenants suffer from bad times. He is called upon to make reductions in the rents; and he generally does so. He is able to do so, because he is dealing with his own property; but the Local Authority would be placed in a totally different position, because they would be dealing with the property of the ratepayers, for which they would be only trustees. Moreover, the Local Authority would be elected by the very people who are pecuniarily interested in the management of the estates, and enormous pressure would therefore be brought to bear upon them. If the Local Authority gave way, the trust of the ratepayers would be betrayed; whilst if the Local Authority resisted, they would become the most unpopular landlords in the world. I cannot think there will be in the minds of anyone who has carefully and impartially considered this question any difference of opinion as to its being preferable that the land should be sold, and not let. At the same time, we were disposed to make some provision for that class of persons whom it is desirable to put upon the land, but who cannot afford to purchase. The Bill provides that the Local Authority should be empowered to let the land in holdings of ten acres to such persons. The limit of ten acres does not, however, represent any fixed principle; and if good reasons can be advanced for altering it, we shall be prepared to make the alteration. I will now venture to refer to some observations I have frequently heard advanced during the course of these Debates. Many hon. Gentlemen have declared that, as far as the agricultural labourers are concerned, there is not one in 50,000 who would ever be able to purchase a small holding. Now, I believe that statement to be entirely unfounded, or, at all events, to be a very great exaggeration of the facts of the case. It has been my duty to make inquiries into this question during the last few months, and I have been astonished to find what a large number of farmers there are in a prosperous condition who have been agricultural labourers themselves, or the sons of agricultural labourers. Surely that is a most encouraging thing to learn, and it supplies a very decisive answer to the declarations of hon. Gentlemen that not one in 50,000 would ever be able to purchase a small holding. I believe that, with the provisions in the Bill which I have mentioned, a large number of labourers will be able by their own industry to purchase small holdings, and that they will thus be in a position to mount the ladder, to which the hon. Member for Bordesley has referred. I think I have now given reasons for the decision we have arrived at in regard to the Bill, and I will only further say that I shall be unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.

*(9.40.) MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)

While I agree with the intentions of the hon. Member, I do not think his Amendment expresses his meaning, or that it is one we can embody in the Bill. The Bill in itself is not inconsistent with occupation; indeed, it distinctly contemplates that the purchaser should occupy. There is no reason why the power to let the land should be restricted to those who cannot purchase. There may be many cases in which people may be well able to purchase, but who prefer to rent; and I see no reason why such persons, whom it would be very desirable to get upon the land, should not benefit by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman contended that Local Authorities could not perform the duties of landlords, but I would point out that there are already a large number of public corporations throughout England who possess land and who lease and let it. I admit that there are some cases in which they have not been good and satisfactory landlords; but the right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that there are many corporate bodies, large and small, which have managed their estates in a very satisfactory manner. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should be so tenacious in opposing a merely enabling clause to give the County Councils the power of letting as well as selling the land, and I hope he will reconsider the matter. We would agree to any reasonable condition the right hon. Gentleman might wish to impose in regard to it. I speak now as a friend of the Bill. I think that altogether it is an exceedingly good Bill, reflecting credit both on the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, and I wish to do nothing to impair its usefulness. The Amendments I have put on the Paper are more in the nature of suggestions than anything else. My object in making them is to improve the drafting in two or three places and to give the Bill a wider scope, and to enable it to reach a class of people it would otherwise not reach. I agree that this Amendment cannot be accepted in its present form, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it if it is so altered, and thus give the County Councils the power of letting as well as re-selling.

(9.45.) MR. HALDANE

I wish to support the appeal of my hon. Friend, and in doing so I will read some words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford himself. I find in Hansard of 26th January, 1886, this passage in his speech— With regard to a large creation of small holdings by the action of the Legislature I hold a totally different opinion altogether. I am satisfied that not only would it do nothing to mitigate, but, in my opinion, it would have precisely the opposite effect, and it would only tend to aggravate and increase the agriculture depression, of which we all so much complain. Something, no doubt, may be said in favour of small tenancies, but I have yet to learn whether by means of small holdings, as a general rule, small tenancies or small freeholds are meant by the author of this Amendment. I admit that in many cases a tenant of a small farm, holding his farm under favourable occupation, has probably been able to weather the storm of depression as well as, and possibly better than, some of his neighbours in larger occupations; but the small tenancy is one thing, and the small freehold is another. If these words of the right hon. Gentleman were true then, are they not also true to-day? So far as the present Bill is concerned it compels the purchaser to pay down a quarter of the purchase money. Now, I should like to know how many of the class to whom this clause would apply would be in a position to do what is required of them. Not only would they have to be in a position to put down a quarter of the purchase money, but they would also require money with which to stock the land. The small holder is placed in a sufficiently difficult position without the additional difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman would place in the way of the purchase of the freehold. If this Bill had been analagous to the Irish arrangement for the purchase of the freehold, there would have been little need for the Amendment; but I do feel that but a very small class of those whom we wish to benefit will be reached unless the principle of this Amendment is accepted. I do not care in what form it is put so long as the ten acre restriction is taken off. I would, therefore, appeal to the right, hon. Gentleman to act up to the sentiments which actuated him when he made the speech from which I have quoted on the 26th January, 1886.

COMMANDER BETHELL

In the present discussion there is no question of principle involved—that has already been conceded. My right hon. Friend has mentioned several reasons why he thinks the substance of this Amendment ought not to be admitted in the Bill. He observed that if the Local Authority is allowed to let land without restriction as to the amount or persons who may be allowed to hire it, the Local Authorities lose security by reason of not having a certain amount of money left in their hands. If that is true, it is also true that the Local Authority can get rid of a bad tenant; while under the other conditions the bad tenant may go out of the land after he has ruined it, the land ultimately coming into the hands of the County Council in such a condition as to require considerable expenditure before it is again brought to its proper value. I would point out here that this Amendment, as does the Amendment I should have moved, really gives greater elasticity to the County Council. As to the question of buildings, I do not suppose that the County Council would let land in such sizes as would necessitate the erection of buildings. As has been pointed out, you cannot let land on a yearly tenancy and expect the tenants to put up buildings, and in a great many cases where small holdings are not far from villages buildings of the nature contemplated would not be required. In that respect I would remark that the elas- ticity which this Amendment proposes is really desirable. Wherever buildings are concerned, I take it that the land will be sold. Then he further mentioned the case of the Local Authority as landlord, and in this connection there would, no doubt, be some difficulty; but I do not think it is of such a nature that we should trouble ourselves much about it. With reference to the case he submitted, where a County Council, possessed of a considerable quantity of land, might have pressure put upon it order to lower rents, I think the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the number of people with whom the County Council is concerned, and also the vastness of the area. While you might possibly bring pressure upon the parish Vestry, you could not bring influence of that nature to bear on the County Councils. What we ask is that those who do not wish to buy may hire land. If the hon. Member goes to a Division I shall feel it my duty to support him, seeing that I have an Amendment of the same nature on the Paper.

MR. BARCLAY

I sympathise very much with the desire to give the agricultural labourers a footing upon the land; but I think the system of hiring land for a limited period is so unsatisfactory that I cannot give it my support. It is necessary for the proper cultivation of the land that the men who hold it should hold it in perpetuity of tenure on certain known terms; and I think that object might be accomplished if we induced the Government to adopt the principle of the Irish Land Act by taking payments for the land by instalments extending over a period of years. He would then have the ownership of the land so long as he paid the instalments every year, and, at the same time, the security of the County Council would increase. I think you will find that a man taking land on a lease for 20 years will deem that period not sufficient to justify the expenditure of money on the land. I think the hon. Member, instead of pressing the Amendment, should take the alternative of pressing for the acceptance of the proposal to take payment for the land by instalments.

MR. CHANNING

This discussion, if I may say so, has been somewhat disorderly. The real question will come on in the next sub-section, and then the discussion can properly take place. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that, as his Amendment is open to serious objection, he would be wise in withdrawing it, and leaving the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) in its place.

*SIR W. BARTTELOT (Sussex, North West)

I venture to say that the ten acres which my right hon. Friend proposes the County Council should be allowed to let is amply sufficient for all purposes at present. My right hon. Friend has stated that this is an experimental measure. Surely, when we find that everybody wants to rent land, then will be the time to consider the subject. There are at this moment many landlords who are anxious, ready, and willing, to let to any small tenant land of the kind in question. I myself should be exceedingly glad to find small tenants wanting to rent land. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not go one inch further than he has done in the direction of leasing, because I am certain it would be a step in the wrong direction.

MR. H. GARDNER

I rise to meet one argument which has been used by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin). He pointed out that one reason why this Bill should pass is because there are many agricultural labourers who have now become by industry and thrift occupiers of land. Yes, they are occupiers of land, but they are not owners, and the whole point is that by this Bill they are to become owners. The fact that there are men who have risen from the position of agricultural labourers in this country to be farmers is in no way an argument why we should not lease land. On the other hand, it is the strongest reason why we should lease land. Therefore, the argument that the right hon. Gentleman has advanced tells more against himself.

*MR. CHAPLIN

What I said was this. I referred to gentlemen now farming on their own account who have risen from the position of agricultural labourers, to prove, not that it is necessary they should become owners of land, but that they would have sufficient money to pay down, under the provisions of this Act, to purchase small holdings.

MR. H. GARDNER

That explanation seems to tend still further in our direction, because it is obvious that agricultural labourers must be assisted to farm more than ten acres in order that they may save sufficient money to purchase land for themselves and become the yeoman class which we desire to see. It seems to me that leasing should be put on an equality with purchase in this Act, and it is in this direction I shall vote. I venture to think that some of the Amendments which follow more completely raise the issue than this one does. At the same time, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall support him.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS

I venture to join in the appeal which has been made from every quarter of the House to extend the operation of the Bill in the direction now sought. As has been already said, this proposal of my hon. Friend is only a question of degree, and not one of principle. Not only is the principle conceded by the right hon. Gentleman himself in Sub-section 2, but it is also conceded in Section 8, where the County Council are authorised not only to sell lands in accordance with the rules and terms of the Act, but to sell lands, if they happen to be superfluous, upon any terms they please. Therefore there is no question of principle involved. Now, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it is safe to pass the 2nd sub-section if he adheres to the opinion that it is unsafe to adopt my hon. Friend's Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Local Authorities as bodies not very well qualified to manage estates. Well, I do not think the management of estates by Local Authorities would come into operation very much. Once they had leased or let the land for occupation they would not have to manage the estates as if they kept the land in their own hands. In the interest of the Bill, in order to carry out the objects of the promoters, that of bringing the labourers step by step, if necessary, into actual ownership of the land, and inasmuch as the question of principle has been conceded, I venture to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will help to make the Bill much more thorough and comprehensive and satisfactory by accepting the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

*MR. CHAPLIN

Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be of opinion that the Local Authorities should have as much power to let land as they have to sell it. The Government, on the other hand, is still of opinion that it is desirable in the first instance, if possible, that they should sell it. That opinion is founded on reasons which I have submitted to the Committee, and to which no sufficient answer has been given to induce me to change my view. The reasons are that it is desirable, where possible, that the land shall be sold instead of let, so that the Local Authorities shall not be placed in the position of landowners. I have recognised from the first that it is inevitable some land will have to be let by them, but I do not think it is desirable to extend that provision more largely than is necessary. I am obliged, therefore, to adhere to the proposition which I have made, which really comes to this, that land is to be offered for sale in the first instance. If it is not sold, and cannot be sold, then the Local Authorities are empowered to let. I hope the Committee are now sufficiently well acquainted with the point under discussion to allow them to come to a decision.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

There is one point I must mention. The success of this Bill depends upon the goodwill of the ratepayers, of whom there will be twenty or thirty to every tenant or owner of land. I can quite understand that the ratepayers will allow the County Councils to buy land for the purpose of creating peasant proprietors, and that they will allow a certain amount of letting of land. But if, under the proposals of my hon. Friend, the County Councils are to enter into gigantic land speculations with all the possible financial dangers, I say that the ratepayers will not allow this Act to be adopted.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 164.—(Div. List, No. 112.)

(10.32.) MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON

I have three Amendments on the Paper. The first is in page 2, line 18, to leave out from "where" to "tenants" in line 22 inclusive. The second, which is merely consequential, is in line 22, after "the," to insert "county," and the third in line 22 leave out from "which" to "extent" in line 23. The effect of this Amendment will be to make that part of the clause read— The County Council may in the case of any small holding, instead of offering it for sale, offer to let it in accordance with the Rules under this Act.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The Amendment is inconsistent with the action of the Committee on previous Amendments.

MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON

I submit, Sir, that the first part of the Amendment would be in order, and I trust that this Amendment will be accepted by the Government, because the sub-section as it now stands deals only with abnormal conditions, whereas this Amendment is intended to meet cases which are not abnormal, but normal. The first words in the section appear to be more or less unnecessary, and I think they might very well be omitted. Accepting this Amendment will not interfere with the subsequent Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre).

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 18, to leave out from the word "where" to the word "tenants," in line 22.—(Mr. Francis Stevenson.)

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

*MR. CHAPLIN

The hon. Gentleman said there would be no difficulty if I accepted this Amendment; but there is this difficulty, that it raises practically the question we have been discussing the last hour and a half, and on which we have already voted.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

The object of my hon. Friend's Amendment is that in the case of holdings under ten acres the Local Authority should have absolute freedom to either sell or let.

*MR. WINTERBOTHAM

I do not care to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who has made no concession yet; but I want to recall what he promised. He said he would carefully consider the question, and try to meet us when we got to Sub-section 2 of Clause 3.

*MR. CHAPLIN

I am going to make a concession directly, by accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre).

*MR. WINTERBOTHAM

We already have that in black and white; but it was after you had accepted the Amendment that you promised to further consider the matter. A long discussion was finished up with these words by the right hon. Gentleman— I take it to be a general understanding that leasing powers should be included in the Bill in respect of all holdings where no buildings are necessary. I should be perfectly willing to fairly and fully consider that point, though without absolutely pledging myself upon it. I want to know what the result of this "full and fair consideration" is. When the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bradford is accepted the County Council will have to be of opinion that persons desirous of buying and themselves cultivating small holdings are unable to buy. How unfair that is to the agricultural labourer! There might be many labourers to whom the County Council might say, "You have £20 in your pocket and you can buy." But the man might have a large family, and therefore prefer to rent, or he might have views as to his future, and, therefore, not wish to tie himself to one spot of land or one parish. Why should you prevent him being a tenant for the first few years, and then buying if it proves to be to his interest and if he likes? We want to make it clear by this Clause that the County Council shall have absolute power to let up to ten acres, where no buildings are required, to persons desirous of cultivating without any other condition.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

The right hon. Gentleman is going to accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, and I cannot see why, if he is going to admit that some of the small holders shall be tenants, he should keep in the words "buying and." The right hon. Gentleman has already conceded the point, and if he will not drop all the words of the Amendment, he might drop out the words "buying and."

*MR. CHAPLIN

The words "buying and" are in reference to Clause 1, but I am prepared to leave out those words.

MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON

If the right hon. Gentleman will drop those words, I withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "buying and."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

I move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 20, to leave out all after "Act," to "the," in line 22.—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

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

Question put, and negatived.

MR. ESSLEMONT

I beg to move the omission of the word, "In the case of any holding which does not exceed ten acres in extent," my object being that the County Council shall have power to let holdings of larger extent than ten acres. Ten acres is an arbitrary limit, and I do not see why if they can let ten acres they should not be able to let eleven or twelve or any other number of acres. I hope the Amendment, which is a fair and moderate one, will be accepted.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, to leave out all after "may," to "extent," in line 23.—(Mr. Esslemont.)

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

*MR. CHAPLIN

The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this is an arbitrary limit, but I have taken it because it was recommended in the Report of the Select Committee, and that appears to me a good reason in a case of this sort, as opposed to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, which fixes no limit whatever. I cannot accept the Amendment, as I think it very undesirable that land should be let to any extent.

*SIR W. FOSTER

A great many of us think that the ten acre limit is much too low, and I think the discussion might be much simplified if the right hon. Gentleman would extend the limit to 20 acres. I am sure that this would be a concession on the part of the right hon. Gentleman which would be very acceptable on this side of the House, and very acceptable in the country generally, to the agricultural labourers, and other people concerned.

(10.51.) MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

The claim is made on behalf of the agricultural labourer, of whom we have heard a good deal in the course of this Debate; and we are told that the agricultural labourer is a person who, by no conceivable circumstances, can be expected to have saved any considerable amount of money. We are, therefore, told that this Bill for the creation of small owners is perfectly useless, because the agricultural labourer who has not saved any money would not be able to pay the small sum which would be required as a deposit in order to reap the advantages conferred by the Act. And then comes the hon. Member who has just sat down, and other hon. Members, who claim that this same pauper agricultural labourer—("No, no!")—for that is their own statement—

SIR W. FOSTER

NO, no; not pauper.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

Pauper in the sense of being poor. That this poor agricultural labourer, who has no capital whatever, should be put in possession of a tenancy of 20 acres. Very well, how much capital is required to work a farm of 20 acres? In order to work a farm of 20 acres, so that it may pay, a man must have at least a capital of £200. If he has a capital of £200, I say it would be very much better for him and very much better for the country that he should become a small owner under this Bill.

(10.52.) SIR W. FOSTER

My point is this—the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to misrepresent what I said.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I submit to you, Sir, if that is in order? The hon. Member says that I have endeavoured to misrepresent what he said.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have called the hon. Member to order, and I must ask him to withdraw.

*SIR W. FOSTER

The point I wish to raise—("Order, order!")—I withdraw at once to satisfy the Chair. What I wish to say is that my point was not put in the way in which I intended it to be put. I would add that I hope the agricultural labourer will not be limited to ten acres; and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite to allow him to have an opportunity of getting beyond that limit. A man may be poor at the commencement, and yet he may in time, by his industry, be capable of adding on five acres, and later on he may be able to take ten acres. We want him to have the opportunity of going on beyond ten acres up to twenty acres. Surely those who profess to be the friends of the agricultural labourer ought to sympathise with us in this. We have heard something about the ladder this evening. I want to make the ladder have one or two rungs more, so that the agricultural labourer can raise himself higher; and I think I ought to have the sympathy of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division, as well as of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in this matter. I assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this is a concession which will be very useful and very popular in the country. The amount of money which the agricultural labourer requires to stock his land has been over-stated. He does not want £10 an acre, nor half of it. If an agricultural labourer has £40 or £50, it would be much better spent in the position of a tenant than in purchasing land in order to become the owner. It is to give him an opportunity of using his money to the best possible purpose that I ask the right hon. Gentleman for the small concession of extending the letting of it from ten acres to twenty acres.

(10.54.) MR. H. GARDNER

I venture to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I do so with some hope and confidence, because the right hon. Gentleman who is passing this Bill through the House, even in the last words he has used, seems to have more sympathy for the agricultural labourer than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, because he has given us some hope that he will extend the limit of ten acres as I understand him only just now The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has very much over-stated the amount of capital which would be necessary for an agricultural labourer to work a holding of 20 acres; and I speak of that with some experience. But if you take it at £200, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is quite obvious that to work 100 acres he would require £100; and my experience of the agricultural labourer is that it would be as difficult for him to produce £100 as £200. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman's idea of the amount of capital is a correct one, and that we must adopt the limit of ten acres which he prefers, it would be equally difficult for the agricultural labourer to work that quantity as it would be to work 20 acres.

*(10.56.) COLONEL EYRE

In considering the letting value of land, the hon. Gentleman entirely forgot the value of the tenant right, which, in all probability, taking an average clay farm and the four-course system, would range from £7 to £1 or £2 an acre. He omitted that altogether from his calculation, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham is perfectly right.

(10.57.) MR. ESSLEMONT

Why, we were told not long ago by many right hon. Gentlemen that it was quite possible for an agricultural labourer, a saving man, to work his way to a farm which would employ a pair of horses, and the hon. Member for Forfarshire, who ought to know something about these matters, said that was a very proper limit for him to go to, namely, a farm that he could work with a pair of horses. But now we have the dictum laid down that we are not going a step beyond ten acres for the agricultural labourer. If that be so, what use is the right hon. Gentleman's Bill? I admit that some limit should be fixed; but what I fail to see is that the right hon. Gentleman has given any reason whatever why we should have the limit of ten acres, and why it should not be left to the discretion of the County Council either to let or sell according to the circumstances of the case. There is no reason that I can see for this limit except the Report of this Committee, but the Report of this Committee is not like the law of the Medes and Persians which could not be changed.

*(11.0.) MR. CHAPLIN

I am inclined to doubt very much if this concession would be anything like so very acceptable to the agricultural labourers as hon. Gentlemen seem to imagine. I dare say I have had as many opportunities of meeting the agricultural labourers and of obtaining their views, especially on the merits of this Bill, as any Gentleman in this House. I can say without exaggeration that I have met some hundreds, I might say thousands, of agricultural labourers, and explained the Bill to them precisely as it stands now; and from all the agricultural labourers that I have met, both in public and in private, I never heard one single suggestion made to me that the limit of ten acres should be exceeded. The agricultural labourers are exceedingly practical men; they know perfectly well what they can do, and what they cannot do. They thoroughly understand the land and its management quite as well as any farmer in the country. I am perfectly confident of this, that if there had been any general desire, such as is supposed to exist among hon. Gentlemen opposite for an increase of the limit of ten acres to twenty acres, on the part of the agricultural labourers themselves, I should have been one of the very first to have heard of it. I must say that I agree altogether with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. He was instrumental in forwarding through the Committee the Bill which is now before the House; and I do not think that anybody deserves more credit for this Bill than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.

(11.1.) MR. BARCLAY

I would be disposed to support this Amendment in the interest of the County Councils. If the County Councils were unable to let all their land, the Amendment would have this effect, that it would enable them to let the surplus to some person to whom land had been already let, and who might want more. The clause, as it stands, would, as I understand it, prevent them from doing this.

(11.2.) MR. HALDANE

This is a matter of some importance, and as it is now after eleven o'clock, I beg to move to report Progress.

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

(11.3.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I entirely understand the wish of hon. Gentlemen opposite to get to the other important business before the House, and I desire to meet their views by proceeding as rapidly with the discussion as possible. But I think we might without difficulty dispose of this clause before the other important business is taken, as I believe, and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) says, there is nothing controversial in the rest of the clause.

(11.3.) MR. CHANNING

In supporting the Motion to Report Progress I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he said he did not attach much importance to the number, ten acres. I think the discussion has not gone sufficiently into the merits of the case whether or not we should enlarge the ten acres to twenty acres, unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept some limit which would meet the views of other hon. Members. I think it is only quite reasonable that you should report Progress in order to afford time to consider the question, and I beg to support the Motion.

*(11.4.) MR. CHAPLIN

It is true that I made that statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. But the reason why I have not accepted the Amendment is because, with great respect to hon. Gentlemen, I have not heard any reason advanced in support of the Amendment, contrary to my own knowledge, which would induce me to do so. I admit that this is a matter of very extreme importance, and if I can see my way to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen I shall be willing to accept 15 acres. I also wish to point out that I made one error in the observations which I made just now as to the character of this clause. There is, I observe, an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Devon which is an important Amendment.

SIR W. FOSTER

If "fifteen acres" were inserted that would meet our views.

(11.5.) MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will bring this clause into harmony with the 2nd sub-section of Clause 1 by fixing a money limit as well. The sub-section would then read— Which either does not exceed fifteen acres, or if exceeding fifteen acres, is of the annual value, for the purposes of the income-tax, not exceeding £15.

(11.7.) DR. CLARK

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now agree to report Progress, in order that this question may be considered by the Minister for Agriculture, and because the understanding was that at eleven o'clock we would begin to discuss the very important question raised by the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I do not think my hon. Friend has heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He has undertaken, in order to close the discussion, to make it fifteen acres.

MR. HALDANE

I do not think fifteen acres is what we should like in Scotland, but in order to shorten discussion I shall ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ESSLEMONT

I am wishful that the Committee should recognise that we are willing to meet concessions as far as possible, and although I can see no harm in removing the limit altogether, I shall in the interests of business withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, after the word "which," to insert the word "either."—(Mr. Halley Stewart.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "fifteen."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 23, after the word "extent," to insert the words, "or if exceeding fifteen acres, is of the annual value, for the purposes of the income-tax, not exceeding £15."—(Mr. Halley Stewart.)

Amendment agreed to.

(11.10.) MR. JESSE COLLINGS

My Amendment is a very simple Amendment, and one which the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee will, I think, be able to accept without any difficulty.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, after the word "Act," in line 24, to insert the words,—"The County Council shall have power to let one or more small holdings of not more than fifteen acres each to a number of persons working on a co-operative system, provided the same be approved by the County Council."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)

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

*(11.12.) MR. CHAPLIN

There is no necessity for this Amendment as far as I understand it. There is nothing to prevent the County Council doing the very thing which the hon. Member proposes in his Amendment.

(11.13.) MR. JESSE COLLINGS

It is quite true that they can let 15 acres to A, 15 acres to B, and 15 acres to C; but according to the Bill, as I read it, they cannot let three or four 15 acres conjointly to a number of people. The Amendment cannot do any harm.

*MR. CHAPLIN

I accept it.

DR. CLARK

I beg again to move that you report Progress. A quarter of an hour has already passed since the hour agreed upon by the right hon. Gentleman for the discussion of the Scotch Universities Commission, and I trust he will give us the time agreed upon, and not keep us here till three or four o'clock.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I trust that, as there is no objection to this Amendment, it will be allowed to pass. That will not cost any time, whereas if we are to discuss the question a considerable time will be wasted. The hon. Gentleman below me will not find that there will be any delay if he allows the Amendmant to be carried to which there is no objection.

MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)

Will the hon. Member for Bordesley explain what he means by the words "the same" in his Amendment?

DR. CLARK

I beg to move that the Chairman do report Progress. It was a clear understanding that we should commence the Scotch Universities Commission at eleven o'clock.

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I must remind the hon. Member that what I said was that, if we made good progress with the Bill, at eleven o'clock or soon after I would report Progress. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in his proposal.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that something else has happened. We were engaged in discussing a knotty point whether the Committee should accept ten acres or fifteen acres. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said, "If you bring this discussion to an end, in order that we may pass to the other Bill, I will accept the Amendment." It was understood both on the part of the Government and the Members on this side of the House that when that matter was disposed of we should pass to other business. If we are to go on and finish the clause, we do not know how long the other Amendments may take, and in the end nothing substantial will have been done.

*MR. CHAPLIN

The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. What I said was that we should finish the clause, there being only five Amendments on the Paper, some of which I had already agreed to accept. I propose to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bordesley.

Question put.

(11.18.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 192.—(Div. List, No. 113.)

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

*(11.28.) DR. FARQUHARSON

As a pledge was given that the discussion on the Scotch Universities question should come on at 11 o'clock, and it is now half-past eleven, I shall move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Dr. Farquharson.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I would point out that the hon. Member cannot make the Motion in that form, and that of the 30 minutes since 11 o'clock, 25 of them were occupied in the preliminary discussion of the Motion which has just been rejected. For that reason I cannot agree to the proposition, and I hope the hon. Member will withdraw it.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member withdraw his Motion?

*DR. FARQUHARSON

I will withdraw it and move to report Progress.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow, at Two of the clock.