HC Deb 10 May 1892 vol 4 cc518-49

COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th May.]

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 3.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 24, after the word "Act," to insert the words—"The County Council shall have power to let one or more small holdings of not more than 15 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."

Amendment agreed to.

(4.5.) MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

I beg to move— In page 2, line 24, after "Act," to insert,—"Provided that a tenant of any small holding may, before the expiration of his tenancy, remove any fruit and other trees and bushes planted or acquired by him for which he has no claim for compensation. Provided also, that any tenant of a small holding may, before the expiration of his tenancy, remove any toolhouse, shed, greenhouse, fowlhouse, or pigstye built or acquired by him for which he has no claim for compensation. This is precisely the same Amendment which was agreed to by the Government in the Allotments Act, and it is copied from that Amendment. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) last night that he was prepared to accept it.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 24, after the word "Act," to insert the words—"Provided that a tenant of any small holding may, before the expiration of his tenancy, remove any fruit and other trees and bushes planted or acquired by him for which he has no claim for compensation. Provided also, that any tenant of a small holding may, before the expiration of his tenancy, remove any toolhouse, shed, greenhouse, fowlhouse, or pigstye built or acquired by him for which he has no claim for compensation."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)

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

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

The object sought to be attained by this Amendment is, I think, already provided for. It seems to me to be covered by the Agricultural Holdings Act.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE

I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that, at all events, that portion of the Amendment relating to the removal of Any toolhouse, shed, greenhouse, fowl house, or pigstye, built or acquired by him for which he has no claim for compensation is not covered by the Agricultural Holdings Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

I beg to move— In page 2, line 24, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, "Provided also that the County Council shall not in any case require the payment from any tenant of his rent, or any part thereof, in advance. I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment?

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 24, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, "Provided also that the County Council shall not in any case require the payment from any tenant of his rent, or any part thereof, in advance."—(Mr. Cobb.)

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

(4.8.) MR CHAPLIN

My own view is that matters of this kind ought to be left to the County Councils, as the popular representative body; and I am sure that they may be very properly left in their hands. I imagine that the County Councils are very unlikely to abuse their powers in this direction. But if they ever do so, the remedy will be in the hands of the electors themselves.

*MR. COBB

I have some experience as regards the Allotments Act. In the Allotments Act we know that the Rural Sanitary Authorities have power to demand one quarter's rent in advance; and I do not know anything in the Act that has produced more dissatisfaction amongst the tenants of allotments than this power which has been given to the Rural Sanitary Authorities or Boards of Guardians. I do not say they have exercised it in a great number of cases. I do not think they have; but the tenants of allotments feel it as a slur upon them that they should be the only class that should be called upon to pay their rents in advance. I may mention that when the Allotments Bill was under consideration I moved an exactly similar Amendment. Then the Members of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division voted against that Amendment. But I am happy to say that the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) and other hon. Members on the other side of the House repented of that course, because the next Session a Bill was introduced by them, one of the provisions of which was that the Sanitary Authorities in the rural districts should not have power to demand rents from allotment tenants in advance. If it was unnecessary to demand rents in advance in that case, I think it is still more unnecessary in this case. The point is a simple one, and I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman does not agree to my proposal. At all events, I consider the matter of sufficient importance to be decided by the Committee, and I shall certainly divide upon it.

(4.11.) MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

There is a difference between allotments and these small holdings. I was in hopes that the Allotments Act would be largely adopted by populous boroughs. In that case there would be a large number of applications coming before the Treasurer or Borough Surveyor for allotments, and it would not be the same as in the country where the administrative body would know each applicant. The authorities in a large city would have no guarantee whatever as to the character of the applicants, except in demanding, or in having the power to demand, that the rent should be paid down. But it is quite a different matter with small holdings, which are not likely to be taken up by men in towns. This Bill will be operative only in the country districts, where the County Council will know the personal character of all the applicants. In that case, I do not see any reason why these applicants, any more than any other tenants who apply for land, should be required to submit to terms which other tenants are not required to submit to.

*SIR W. FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

I should like to support the Amendment, because I know that in many instances, under the Allotments Act, this payment of rent in advance has been felt to be a very great hardship. At the time he gets his allotment a man wants every penny he has in his possession in order to enable him to do justice to the land, and what is true of agricultural labourers obtaining allotments would, à fortiori, be true of agricultural labourers obtaining small holdings, and I am sure the chances of success of many a poor man in the rural districts would be very much enhanced if the right hon. Gentleman would allow this Amendment to be carried. I do not think the reasons given by the hon. Member for Bordesley are sufficient or adequate for his course of conduct on a former occasion. He admits that he sacrificed the rural labourers for the sake of the authorities of the large towns. He allowed the Allotments Act to pass in a form, which permitted authorities to take rent in advance, because he was afraid some people of not very good character might obtain allotments. I think that is a very inadequate reason, and I am glad the hon. Member is now in another frame of mind.

(4.14.) MR. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

This seems to me to be a practical question. I understand that the County Council will not have the right or option of selecting their tenants. They are a public body offering land to all comers, and I think it would be injudicious and improper for the County Council to prefer one tenant to another. Of course, a private landlord would take care that a tenant would have some reasonable means to enable him to pay a fair rent; but here the only security of the County Council, if they are in doubt, will be to ask an applicant to pay the rent beforehand. I do not see how any County Council can refuse land to any ratepayer or any person in the land if he asks for it, although they may have very great doubts as to his ability to pay rent, and County Councils would have no security, for the crops would be removed and there would be nothing left for them. I think, in the interests of the poor man who has very little credit, it would be an advantage to him to pay his rent in advance in order to get the land.

(4.16.) MR. HERBERT KNATCH-BULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham)

I hope my right hon. Friend will be firm in resisting the Amendment. It seems to me an unwise attempt to fetter the County Council. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to have much faith in a County Council if they cannot trust it to do justice between man and man in a matter of this kind.

Question put.

(4.20.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 205.—(Div. List, No. 117.)

(4.33.) MR. THOMAS ELLIS (Merionethshire)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out the word "inclusive," and insert the word "exclusive." I propose this Amendment in order that the County Council may have a larger sum available for the purchase of obtaining land, and that the allowance to officers of the Council for work connected with the acquisition and adaptation of the land should not be included in it.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 27, to leave out the word "inclusive," and insert the word "exclusive."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)

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

MR. CHAPLIN

I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member, because it would throw the expense of the operation of the Act upon the rates.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 4.

*(4.39.) MR. COBB

It is desirable that the inquiry should be made by those who know something about the locality concerned. Therefore, I propose that the Committee should not necessarily be the same in every case, but that it should vary according to the part of the country in which it is alleged in the petition that there is a demand for small holdings. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure me that it is his intention to carry out some such arrangement, I will withdraw this Amendment at once. I should be quite satisfied as long as steps are taken to meet local requirements.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 32, after the word "Act," to insert the words "and the constitution of such Committee shall vary according to the part or parts of the county in which it is alleged, in any petition presented under Subsection 2 of this section, that there is a demand for small holdings. Such Committee shall include the Councillor or Councillors representing such part or parts, and every Councillor and Alderman residing therein, and also the chairman of every District and Parish Council that may be established by any Act of Parliament which may be passed in this or any succeeding Session of Parliament which comprises such part or parts in its area."—(Mr. Cobb.)

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

MR. CHAPLIN

I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, but I recognise the force of the hon. Member's suggestion, and I am prepared to meet him by amending the clause so that Councillors of the district in which there is a demand for small holdings shall in all cases be added to the Committee.

*MR. COBB

Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not put in Aldermen as well?

MR. CHAPLIN

I will take the Aldermen too.

(4.40.) MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I understand that the Committee appointed under Sub-section 4 is to be a permanent body, and, judging by the work to be carried out, it would be necessary that it should be a continuing body. In this case I hope it will be a very important body—in fact, a sort of Land Court for the county—and that, in accepting the Amendment, the right, hon. Gentleman will not do anything to destroy its permanent character.

*MR. COBB

The object of the Amendment is to vary the Committee according to the different districts, so that when an inquiry is made those who are on the Committee may know something about it. It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to go much farther towards satisfying us than the hon. Member for Bordesley.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON (Devon, Tavistock)

I think it would improve the machinery of the Bill if the Amendment were adopted.

(4.48.) MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

There is another important matter to be considered. The County Councils are to assume the management of the farms and holdings within the boroughs, but the Town Councils are to have nothing, to do with them. Now I suggest that that is a great defect in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that all the counties are not agricultural counties. There are, for instance, 700,000 people in the county of Durham; 60,000 of them are particularly interested in this Bill, while all the rest are manufacturers, miners, and shipbuilders, and the right hon. Gentleman is going to take the rates of the towns in order to place a certain number of persons in possession of land. I submit that in the case of such counties as Durham the Town Councils should not be ignored. There should be an addition to the clause which would enable Borough Councils to have some voice in the settlement of their own affairs.

THE CHAIRMAN

I would point out to the hon. Member that that question will arise particularly on another clause. Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*SIR W. B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, North-West)

I wish to move in page 2, line 33, to leave out the words, "one or more," and insert "six." Six electors would then be able to present a Petition to the Council of their county alleging that there is a demand for small holdings in the county, and praying that the Act shall be put in force.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 33, to leave out the words "one or more," and insert the word "six."—(Sir W. B. Barttelot.)

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

MR. CHAPLIN

If the hon. Member will look a little lower down the clause he will find that I have endeavoured to avoid the difficulty indicated by him. It is there stated that— The petition shall be referred to a Committee appointed under this section, who, on being satisfied that the petition is presented in good faith and on reasonable grounds, shall forthwith cause an inquiry into the circumstances to be made, and shall report the result to the Council. After the discussion we had on this particular question on the Allotments Bill, I should prefer to keep the clause as it is at present.

Question put, and agreed to.

(4.57.) MR. CHAPLIN

I will now move an addition to the third subsection, which may meet the views of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Cobb)— In the event of the Councillor or Councillors representing part or parts of the county in which it is alleged that there is a demand for small holdings not being a Member or Members of the Committee, he or they shall be added to the Committee for the purpose of the consideration of the alleged demand. The hon. Member suggested the addition of "Aldermen." I am not able now to agree to it, but I will consider the suggestion, and will endeavour to make some arrangement with regard to it. As to the observations of the hon. Member for Sunderland, I would point out that the whole question was discussed with considerable length at an earlier period of the Debate on this Bill, and that I have already made concessions in regard to it.

Amendment agreed to.

(4.59.) MR. HALDANE (Haddington)

I beg to move, in page 2, after line 40, to add— (3.) When such a petition has been presented to the Council of a County, and the Council resolve not to put this part of this Act into operation, the Council shall send a copy of the petition, accompanied by a statement of their reasons for not acting upon it, and a copy of the Report of the Committee, to the Local Government Board, and thereupon the Local Government Board may, if they think fit, direct a local inquiry to be held by some person to be appointed for the purpose, and a report to be made with respect to the correctness and sufficiency of such reasons and report, and any matter connected therewith on which information may appear desirable. The objection is presented that the County Councils have already discretion as to putting the Act in force. In proper cases we do not want to control their discretion; but there are County Councils who, for various motives, may not be desirous of doing their duty to the full extent in the way of perfectly considering the proposals of the Act, and, accordingly, this Amendment suggests that if the County Council, having a petition before them, resolve not to act, it shall be their duty to send a copy of the petition, with a statement of their reasons for not acting upon it, to the Local Government Board. Then the Local Government Board has discretionary power to direct an inquiry into the sufficiency of the reasons offered for not putting the Act into operation. The object of that is that we shall be able to move for Returns of the counties in which the Act is not in operation, and so get at the question of what the various County Councils have been doing. We shall exercise a sort of moral control over their operations, and there will be some sort of stimulus to action on their part. I beg to move this sub-clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, after line 49, add—(3.) When such a petition has been presented to the Council of a County, and the Council resolve not to put this part of this Act into operation, the Council shall send a copy of the petition, accompanied by a statement of their reasons for not acting upon it, and a copy of the Report of the Committee to the Local Government Board, and thereupon the Local Government Board may, if they think fit, direct a local inquiry to be held by some person to be appointed for the purpose, and a report to be made with respect to the correctness and sufficiency of such reasons and report, and any matter connected therewith on which information may appear desirable."—(Mr. Haldane.)

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

MR. CHAPLIN

Supposing I accepted the Amendment, and the Local Government Board did send down to make this inquiry to which the hon. Member refers, and their officer reported. What then, there being no way of giving effect to the decision of the Local Government Board? It seems to me, therefore, that, in addition to over-riding in a somewhat harsh manner the decision of the Local Authority, which is naturally best fitted to judge of the requirements of its own district, no practical good would result from the Amendment.

MR. BARCLAY

For the sake of information, would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to agree to a clause requiring County Councils to send a copy of the petitions to the Local Government Board so as to afford an opportunity of ascertaining how the Act was being dealt with?

MR. STOREY

I think we may agree that the Local Government Board will often get snubbed. The Local Authorities can very well take care of their own affairs, unless the hon. Member would carry his Amendment further, and agree that national instead of local money shall be expended. If we are going to spend our own rates we really do not want to have anything to do with the Local Government Board.

Question put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be agreed to."

MR. GRAY (Essex, Maldon)

Before the clause is passed, I wish to ask whether the Committee referred to in this clause may contain any other person than a member of the County Council, if the members deem it wise to appoint someone from their own body in order to give information on the subject before them? The hon. Member for Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings), I think, told us that in reference to a somewhat similar authority outsiders were sometimes admitted to special Committees.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I say that I was contending for the continuity of the Committee? As I understand it, the County Council will, when it meets, appoint a Committee for Small Holdings. What I understood was an intention to have separate Committees for separate inquiries, and so never have a permanent Committee as a standing part of the Council. That is what I wished to say. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Cobb) seemed to make light of that, although it seems, to be the very thing he himself has done.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!. I think the Committee may be spared.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

Yes, I think so, too. The hon. Member will remember he is not on the platform.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. CHAPLIN

In reply to the hon. Member behind me, what he asks can be done where it is provided for by Act of Parliament. Under the effect of the Bill as it stands there will be a permanent Committee to put this Act into operation, and to take cognisance of any petitions for the acquisition of land for small holdings which are presented, and to make inquiries into the subject. That accomplished it will report to the County Council. My object in inserting the clause was that such a petition might receive merited consideration.

Motion agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5.

On Motion of Mr. CHAPLIN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—In page 3, line 1, after the word, "holding," to insert the words "sold by the County Council."

*MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

I move, further, to omit the words "all costs of conveyance," and to insert— The costs of such certificate of transferor registration of title as shall be deemed necessary for an indefeasible title under this Act. I consider that if the costs of re-conveyance be left in this Clause, that the Bill will practically become inoperative. We know that at the present time there is great difficulty in effecting sales of land on account of the great cost of conveyance, but here there will be a double cost—the conveyance from the original owner to the County Council and re-conveyance from the County Council to the person who buys the land. The words "cost of conveyance" in this Clause do not apply to the original costs, because they are dealt with under Clause 3, and become part of the cost of purchase. Therefore, the only object of putting them in this Clause is to force the purchaser to pay the cost of conveyance in the second case. If that is to be so—taking a share of the original conveyance which is scattered over the different holdings under Clause 3 and the whole cost of re-conveyance in Clause 5—there will, in the case of a small holding of two or three acres, be added 40 to 50 per cent. to the purchase money. Therefore, as I am quite certain that the Bill would become utterly and entirely inoperative, I desire to leave out the words, and to establish in the Bill a system of transfer to the new purchaser from the County Council by means of a registration. The question of registration is nothing new. It has been in the platform of various Governments since 1880, and in 1887 a Bill dealing with registration was introduced by the present Government. Then there is the Land Registration Act now in operation, although nothing has been done under it since 1875, and there was a Clause similar to the one I have proposed in the Irish Bill of last year. The Minister of Agriculture himself has practically admitted the necessity of this, for I find he has placed an Amendment on the Paper himself providing for the payment of the costs of conveyance to the purchaser, including any costs of registration of title. But I do not care for his Amendment, because it still leaves the alternative of re-conveyance in the Bill, and the Committee may be perfectly certain that with the great objection lawyers have shown to any alteration in the law with regard to registration and transfer, the County Councils will be a long while before, under the advice of their clerks, they obtain such a system of registration as would make this Bill operative and practicable. I wish, therefore, to take out of the Bill all question of re-conveyance and have only one conveyance between the original owners and the County Councils, so that the County Councils shall by a simple transfer deed transfer the land at the cost of a few shillings to the purchaser. I am perfectly well aware that my words, as they stand, will not entirely accomplish the object I have in view; but if the right hon. Gentleman will look a little further on on the Amendment Paper he will find that I have down an Amendment to Clause 6, as well as the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings), which would carry out the proposal if these words are inserted in the Bill. And I may say that the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) has an Amendment down which I shall be willing to accept in place of my own. I do hope that we are not going to place on the Statute Book an Act which never will be used, because it is utterly and entirely impossible that the purchasers of these small holdings can afford to pay the expenses of conveyance. The difficulty of purchasing land is no doubt a matter that has come home to us all. There are plenty of instances now of Nonconformist chapels and schools never having been enfranchised, and for which is still paid a yearly rental, because those interested prefer trusting to the good faith of the person from whom they rented the land instead of paying the expenses of conveyance, and I am certain that that would be the case here if it were possible. But here they will not have the option. They must either pay for the conveyance, or go without the land altogether, and therefore it is a question whether the Act shall come into force or not. My objection to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not that I prefer my words to his, but because he would leave no option in this matter, as I think if there is an option we shall never get a system of registration. We want a register to be kept by the County Councils by order of the Lord Chancellor, to carry out the provisions of the Act of 1875, and that the transfer of land shall be by means of this register at a nominal cost to the purchaser, and not by a second conveyance with all the costs of lawyers' bills.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 2, after the word "include," to leave out "all costs of conveyance," and insert "the costs of such certificate of transfer and registration of title as shall be deemed necessary for an indefeasible title under this Act."—(Mr. Heneage.)

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

*(5.10.) MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

I agree with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I believe that the uses of this Bill will in a few years be absolutely extinct, unless you adopt an Amendment for entirely clearing the titles from all those difficulties which have made the transfer of land up to this time so expensive that land has practically been a monopoly of the rich. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) has done a very good work in this Bill in giving to the owners of the holdings he has created an indefeasible title, and freeing them from the difficulties other land is subjected to. But unless he does something to keep the titles as clear and indefeasible as he makes them, in a short time all the evils of the system of land tenure in this country, and which Government after Government have attempted to remove, will re-appear, and the whole benefits conferred by this Bill will be lost. Now, Sir, this is a difficulty I have considered for the last 30 years. It does not merely affect the kind of holdings you are now creating. It has been the main difficulty in preventing workmen from owning their houses, or people in the neighbourhood of small towns possessing plots of land. Owing to the cost of transfer, land has become one of the most expensive things a man can invest in. We have to regret the disappearance of small holders of land, and I think the real reason for the disappearance of that class is the difficulty of replacing them. When a merchant disappears he can be replaced by anyone who wishes to take his place without immense expense; but when a small holder is thinking of buying a property he knows he is exposed to great uncertainty with regard to what he may be called upon to pay in the way of costs for conveyance. This is a difficulty that does not stand in the way of a large owner of property adding a farm to his estate to the same extent as in the case of a small man buying a property. I recollect a striking instance bearing on this point being brought before me some years ago, when I was engaged in carrying a Bill through this House for the purpose of making easier and less expensive the transfer of land. A man wrote to me to say he was so glad I had introduced that particular Bill. He had bought a house for £150, and he bargained with an attorney to convey it to him for £5; but when the bill of costs was sent in, the man found he had to pay more than £30. He applied to a lawyer, and was told there was no help for it. Well, about the same time I bought a small property for £4,000, and my total expenses for transfer were £40, so that in one case the cost was 1 per cent., and in the other 20 per cent. It is on account of this enormous cost of transfer to the comparatively poor that we have this disappearance of small holders. Then there is another point, and I am glad to observe signs in this Bill which indicate that the right hon. Gentleman sees the importance of it, because it is one of the greatest difficulties in the way of making his scheme of benefit to the working classes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone) has rightly called attention to this. Suppose a man has saved a little money. Well, he can employ it a great deal better by taking a large farm and using it as capital than by buying a property. But if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) will make his small holding current coin, that can be borrowed upon without risk or expense, he gets rid of that difficulty. Supposing a man has £1,000, and he buys with it ten acres of land. He has hardly any working capital left. But if you make his holding current coin, with no difficulty in borrowing upon it beyond an examination of the register, the man has only to take the register to the banker, and the banker, if he knows him to be a good farmer, will advance him more than the whole value of his farm, because he knows he has that additional security in his stock, &c, which a banker acts upon. Your system, however, whatever it is, must be perfectly simple, and prevent the crowding of your title now or in the future with all the present difficulties. If the right hon. Gentleman does something of that kind then the comparatively poor man may safely invest his money in land, because it will be available for carrying on his business. I do not wish to detain the House longer, but I must say that I think the Amendment is necessary and that registration should be made compulsory, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take care to provide that the titles to the small holdings, as time goes on, shall be just as indefeasible as on the day he gives them.

MR. CHAPLIN

I can assure the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) that I am as anxious as he is that the Bill should be made a real one. It will be seen that I have placed on the Paper an Amendment which seems to me to differ very little, if at all, from the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. I would suggest that he should allow me to insert the Amendment I have to propose at a further stage, and that we should postpone this discussion on registration until it can be dealt with in new clauses. I may add that I have a perfectly open mind on this point, and without pledging myself further at the present time I may state that I am most anxious to deal with this question, and that I propose to put clauses on the Paper dealing with it.

*(5.20.) MR. HENEAGE

I should be glad to accept the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, but while, according to his Amendment, it is voluntary with the County Council to establish a register, in mine it is compulsory. This will have a very great effect upon the lawyers' bills; and as the clerks to the Councils will be the persons to benefit by these charges, I want to make it incumbent on them to establish registration. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to understand that he desires it to be compulsory, and that that will be the effect of the new clause, I agree with him it would be better to discuss the clause when it comes.

(5.21.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight

I think this matter could very much better be discussed when the clause is brought up. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the words are substantially the same in both cases.

*(5.22.) MR. HENEAGE

It is a question of machinery. I think that it is better that the registration should be compulsory, but I agree that it is better that the matter should be discussed later on.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I should like to ask if these words "costs of conveyance" are kept in will they include the cost of proving the title?

MR. CHAPLIN

That question was settled in an earlier part of the Bill.

MR. HALDANE

I think it would be better to postpone the discussion on this very important matter till the clause is brought up.

Question put, and agreed to.

(5.23.) MR. CHAPLIN

I beg to move in page 3, line 2, to leave out the words "costs of conveyance," and insert the words "the costs of conveyance to the purchaser (including any costs of registration of title)."

Amendment agreed to.

(5.24.) DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I think it desirable now to determine what shall be purchased by the County Council and what shall be sold by the County Council to the purchaser. The proposal of the Bill is that one-fourth of the money shall be paid, and there are Amendments suggesting several other percentages, but I want to raise a question of principle. I do not want the County Council to sell to the small holder an economic rent, and I propose to add these words after "assistance," in line 3— It shall include the value of all buildings, roads, fencing, drains, and other improvements, all value due to the expenditure of capital and labour in forming the holding, but shall not include the natural value of the soil and site or economic rent. I wanted to get the legal jargon to express these economic phrases, and I asked several hon. and learned Gentlemen on this side, but I could not get what I wanted, and I have had to leave the words in ordinary phrases. At present rent represents two things: It represents the interest payable to the landlord for capital invested in the buildings, drains, and in all those so-called improvements which add to the value of the soil. So far as England is concerned, that probably represents from three-quarters to four-fifths of the rent payable by tenants. The economic rent is what remains. There is the value which labour and capital have created, the value given to the land by its possessor or his predecessors. But there is another value, which is simply the value of the inherent power of the soil. Take, for instance, four fields, and place in those fields the same amount of capital and labour, and yet one gives 30 bushels to the acre, another 35, another 40, and the fourth may give more. That depends simply on the geological and chemical structure of the soil, not created by any individual, but created by nature, and no one is entitled to the rent from it in preference to any other individual. Then there is also the value of site, which is also economic. This natural value of the soil ought to go to the County Council for the purposes of taxation. If you sell it to a new holder you are giving him a right to a superior soil. You are giving him a monopoly and a privilege by which he will become richer than his fellows in a similar position who have not got his privilege. The question is between what the County Council buys and what it sells. I take it that the four per cent. you are going to charge on what is allowed to remain will represent the difference. I think that should be retained by the County Council in perpetuity. I will not detain the Committee further, but will move my Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 3, after the word "assistance," to insert the words "It shall include the value of all buildings, roads, fencing, drains, and other improvements, all value due to the expenditure of capital and labour in forming the holding, but shall not include the natural value of the soil and site or economic rent."—(Dr. Clark.)

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

(5.30.) MR. CHAPLIN

So far as I have been able to apprehend his meaning, the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) says that rent represents two things: one of them is the interest which may fairly be claimed for outlay that has been made on the land by the owner, or by those who expended money on it; and the other is the economic rent which he describes as the inherent power of the soil. No one, he says, has any right to that inherent value. There we part company, and I do not think it is necessary for me to discuss the question at any great length. Take the case of a man who has bought a piece of land. I hold that the man's right to his land in that case is exactly the same as the right of the hon. Member to the coat on his back or the watch in his pocket. The cases are exactly the same, and I trust the hon. Member will forgive me if I decline to enter into a discussion which promises to go into the question of land nationalisation.

(5.31.) DR. CLARK

I think the right hon. Gentleman knows something, about the matter, but he is trying to throw dust in our eyes. He was unfortunate in his illustration, for the coat on my back is the result of human industry, and the labourer who created it from the raw material had a right to it. I will go further, and say that the men who now have the soil have a right to it, and if we take it away from them they ought to be compensated. But in this case we are not dealing with present landlords; we are going to create new rights in holdings, and the question is whether there should be any limit. The only proper basis of property is that the labourer who creates it, and those who by abstinence save it, have a right to it. But with respect to the natural power of the soil, the right hon. Gentleman knows, that there is a difference, though he declines to discuss it, and his argument about my coat and my watch is entirely beside the point. He knows very well also the value of site; and if he likes to treat the matter in this way, we shall have a Division to take the sense of the House on the matter. I do not quite know in this case whether the proper legal phrase is nationalisation or localisation; but hon. Members will follow my meaning when I say that no one has a right to the inherent power of the soil any more than his fellows, because he has not created it, and it ought to belong to the whole community. The present landlords have been permitted for centuries to hold the land, and when making a change it is best to do it by purchase or compensation. I want to nationalise, so to speak, for the county the economic value of the holdings which may be sold by the County Council.

(5.36.) MR. STOREY

I should be glad to agree with my hon. Friend if I could grasp his meaning. As the Bill stands the County Council can buy land and sell to the new occupier what it likes, and if it chooses to adopt the view of my hon. Friend and sell only a portion, reserving the rest in the form of a rent-charge, it can do so. By so doing it will be repaid the capital amount, and in the future receive interest on the unsold part of the holding. I therefore fail to see what my hon. Friend seeks to gain by his Amendment.

*(5.38.) MR. MORTON (Peterborough)

This is an Amendment which we might well have had an opportunity of considering. As I understand it, the Amendment makes it compulsory on the County Council to reserve a rent which my hon. Friend called the economic rent. That would be the proper way to deal with the question, for then in course of time the County or Parish Councils would probably receive sufficient rent, to pay their local rates. I do not take it that there is any confiscation as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, as the new occupiers would only pay for what they got. I do not believe that the Amendment is likely at this moment to get proper consideration, but I believe it is the proper way to deal with the land question, especially with a view to the future.

(5.40.) MR. CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. It appears to me that it would produce exactly the opposite effect to that which he intends. He intends that the economic rent, which he defines as those qualities of the land which are not conferred by labour, but which arise from the qualities of the soil and the advantage of situation, should be kept for the benefit of the County Council and not go to the new freeholder. On the principle there might be something to say, but how would it work out? The County Council might buy land for £100, and then sell it to the new freeholders for £80, supposing one fifth to represent that which he says is unsaleable; therefore, the County Council would be one-fifth to the bad on the transaction, instead of being one-fifth to the good.

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

The County Council would not be quite so badly off as my hon. Friend who has just sat down seems to think, for they would retain the 20 per cent. as a quit-rent, but I do not think the suggestion of my hon. Friend in the Amendment is a practical one. My view is that a much larger proportion of the value would be wisely retained by the Council, even as much as 80 per cent. We should try to get from the-Government the retention of a quitrent in as large a proportion as we can. If the County Council sells right out in any future dealing with the land question we should have to deal with a hundred proprietors, while now we have only to deal with one. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed to a Division, as I think it would defeat the object we have in view.

(5.44.) DR. CLARK

I am desirous of taking a Division on the Amendment, as this is the first time, so far as Great Britain is concerned, that we have had the Irish principle, which I opposed, before us. I do not wish to transfer an unjust monopoly from one class, a small one, to another class, a large one. I do not think the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Crawford) heard me explain that the difference is simply whether you sell certain things at a certain price, or other things at a higher price. The economic value of these holdings will go on increasing with the increase of the population, and the increase of wealth which will follow the future decrease of competition by our Colonies and America, which will require all their food-stuffs for themselves. Under these circumstances, I think I am compelled to take a Division.

Question put.

(5.45.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 329.—(Div. List, No. 118.)

(6.4.) MR. BARCLAY

I beg to move— In page 3, line 6, after the word "purchase" to insert the words—(3.) "The whole or part of the purchase money may be paid by annual or semi-annual instalments, but such instalments shall not extend over a period of fifty years from the date of the sale as may be agreed on with the Council. The object of this Amendment is to facilitate the acquisition of land by people of small capital, and at the same time to give perfect security to the County Councils. This proposal does not make it imperative upon the County Councils; it only empowers the County Councils and authorises them, if they see fit, to receive the whole of the price of the land, or part of the price by annual instalments. I think after the experience we have had of these instalments in Ireland, we ought to have equal confidence in the small farmers of England and Scotland. Speaking with regard to Scotland, I can say if this system were adopted a small capitalist occupying his land would strain every effort to pay his instalments. I hope the Government will look with favour upon this Amendment. It is not imperative, but enables the County Council, if they think they can do so with security, to take payment of the price by instalments.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 6, after the word "purchase" to insert, as a new sub-section, the words—(3.) "The whole or part of the purchase money may be paid by annual or semi-annual instalments, but such instalments shall not extend over a period of fifty years from the date of the sale as may be agreed on with the Council"—(Mr. Barclay.)

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

(6.7.) MR. CHAPLIN

If the hon. Member will look again at Subsection 4, he will see that the County Council can do exactly what he desires.

MR. BARCLAY

That is the objectionable portion.

MR. CHAPLIN

If the object is to ask me to give up that, then I cannot.

(6.8.) MR. HALDANE

This Amendment is a very important one. It negatives any future attempt to get rid of the one-fourth deposit. Now, I own it seems to me that this clause requiring a deposit is a very great difficulty in the way of this Bill becoming an effectual Bill. Suppose a small holder wishes to become a small occupier under this Bill, what is his position? He has got to find money for stock. Some people put it as high as £10 an acre, and nobody puts it lower than £3 an acre. Suppose it is a farm of between 30 and 40 acres, that means he has got to find £100 down. Then, under the Bill, he has got to find this deposit in addition. That will mean he has got to find another £100 or £150. How many agricultural labourers are there in this country who can find £200? They will find difficulty in getting enough for the bare requisites of stock, and in making a living as they go on. On these grounds we who are anxious to remove this restriction must support the Amendment. It is said there is a danger that you will be letting in an impecunious class of tenants. But there would be no more danger of that than in letting—certainly no more danger than in the case of the Irish tenants. This minimum deposit is something new, and it seems to me if you intend to reach the class who have not got a large amount of means to come and go upon, it is a very unnecessary and unnatural provision to introduce into a Bill of this kind.

*(6.11.) MR. MORTON

I confess I agree with this Amendment so far as it would allow County Councils to advance the whole of the purchase money. I cannot see how this Bill is to be of any use at all to the class of agriculturists whom it is hoped to benefit, unless you lend them the whole of the money. We have to bear in mind that they will in any case have to stock these little holdings to some extent, and how you can expect them, in addition, to find 10 or 20 per cent. of the purchase money, I cannot understand at all. There is another matter. In the Irish Land Purchase Bills, including the one passed last Session, we advance the whole of the purchase money to the Irish tenants. Now, I want to know why we should do that to the Irish people and not to the English, Scotch and Welsh? Why should the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal less fairly with what, at any rate, has been the most orderly portion of the United Kingdom? He may no doubt say that owing to the extreme agitation in Ireland you have been obliged to pass Land Purchase Bills which advance the whole purchase money to the tenant; but if he says so he is inviting the people of England Scotland and Wales to agitate in the same manner in which the Irish people have had to agitate to draw attention to, and get some amelioration of, their grievances. I therefore protest against the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to deal less favourably with the English agricultural labourer, if you like to so term him, and with the Scotch and Welsh; and I say distinctly that Parliament has a right to deal with all the nationalities alike, and that if you advance the whole of the money to the Irish tenant you ought to do the same for the other parts of the United Kingdom. Now, of course, it may be also said that we ought to have a margin for the protection of the County Council who lend the money. That is all right in advancing money on an ordinary mortgage; but I take it that there is no occasion for this where you are proposing to benefit a class who have not got much or any money, and that the County or the Parish Council should take the risk in the same way that it was intended benefit building societies should do; the whole of the members taking the risk for the first few years. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will really give us some better explanation than he has given of his refusal to consider this Amendment. I should like him to explain to this Committee how he expects the agricultural labourers and others who have been meeting him in the country, and to whom he says he is giving such large benefits, to get any benefit unless he advances the whole of the purchase money. I do not think there would be any risk in the matter at all to the County Council or anybody else, because I think it very likely that these holdings instead of decreasing will increase in value. I shall gladly support this Amendment, because I believe the Bill will be of very little use unless it is adopted.

(6.15.) MR. MARJORIBANKS (Berwickshire)

I regret that this point should have been raised on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) rather than on that of the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire (Mr. Haldane), because I think the latter raises the question in a much neater and clearer form than the present Amendment. But I am bound to confess—the question having been raised—that, so far as Scotchmen are concerned, I believe that to insist upon the payment down of a quarter of the purchase money will really render the Bill nugatory. I have had occasion before on this Bill to say that we in Scotland do not look to it to give us those small holdings which English Members expect to establish in England. In Scotland, the would-be small holder expects to get a larger class of holding altogether than the 10, 15, or 20 acre holding expected to be instituted in England; and I do not think any such holder in Scotland would be content to enter upon his holding with a capital of only £3 an acre to stock and to work it. I am much more inclined to think that £10 per acre would be nearer the sum necessary to work a holding of 40 acres and to make it profitable. That, therefore, means that a man in Scotland would require a large amount of capital to enter upon his small holding. Now, the vast majority of Scotch agricultural labourers, or farm servants, have not got large sums of money by them, and the whole of the sum they had would be sunk in this payment down of the quarter of the purchase money. They would, therefore, find themselves incapable of stocking the farms and obtaining working plant. I am quite sure that from the Scotch point of view we must do our very best to insist upon the exclusion of this quarter of the purchase money if we possibly can.

*(6.18.) MR. THORBURN (Peebles and Selkirk)

I thoroughly agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Marjoribanks). In Scotland this Bill will be rendered to a great extent inoperative, if one-fourth of the purchase money is required to be paid down. Take, for instance, a pastoral holding. A man taking one would require something like £300 to stock his farm, and if, in addition, he has to find a fourth of the purchase money, I do not believe you will get any appreciable number of people to take the holdings on such conditions. I should like to see this Bill a thoroughly successful Bill as regards both England and Scotland, and I feel convinced in my own mind that if the Government accede to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the effect upon the working of the Bill will be of the most beneficial nature.

MR. CHAPLIN

I think it would have been more convenient if this discussion had been taken on the Amendment following the one now before us. We seem to be discussing two distinct things at once. In the first place, there is the question whether there should be any payment at all, and then there is the subsidiary question of what that amount should be if there is to be one. I think it would be more convenient to confine ourselves, at first, to the question of whether there should be any payment at all, and I would like to advance some reasons in favour of insisting on it. The provision was inserted in order to give some security, and not an unreasonable security, against loss to the ratepayers. That surely is a consideration which should have received some attention from hon. Members; but it appears to have been entirely omitted from the view of those who have taken part in the Debate. With such a provision as that contained in the Bill, if from any cause there should be a deficit in the tenants' payments, which in the ordinary course would come upon the rates, the County Council would have security. We have been told that the provision would make the Bill a dead letter. But I have frequently pointed out that we have made provision in another manner for those who are not in a position to pay down a sum of money, by enabling the County Council to let the land instead of selling it, and only last night I agreed to extend the limit at which land may be let from 10 to 15 acres. All that will happen where persons are not able to pay down a sum of money will be that they will become tenants under the Local Authority, and with regard to that I have heard argument after argument in favour of their being made tenants instead of purchasers. As to the statement that England and Scotland have been treated unfairly as compared with Ireland, where the tenants are enabled to buy their holdings by having the whole of the money advanced to them, I would point out that a most important consideration has been omitted. On the whole, the Irish tenant is less liberally treated than the purchaser under this Bill. It is true that the whole of the purchase money is advanced in the case of the Irish tenant; but what is it advanced for? It is for that part of the farm which is not already his own. It must be remembered that since the Land Act of 1881 the tenant's interest in his farm is probably equal to the interest of the landlord, so, although we advance all the money, there is twice the amount of property given as security. In the case of this Bill there is as security only the land itself, whilst in Ireland there is also the tenant's interest in the farm.

MR. MORTON

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is that the Government have had to take possession of farms in Ireland because the instalments have not been paid?

MR. CHAPLIN

Only my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary can answer with regard to particular cases. I have heard, however, of tenants being afraid to pay, and actually being prevented from paying and things of that kind. I cannot myself give the hon. Member a fuller answer, but the fact remains that in Ireland there is double the security as compared with England and Scotland. With regard to what has been said about the capital required to stock these small farms, I think that it is probably an exaggeration to say that £10 an acre would be necessary. I consider that there ought to be some security to the ratepayers; and, therefore, so far as the proposal to abandon the money payment down by a purchaser is concerned, I must offer it uncompromising opposition.

MR. ESSLEMONT

What is wanted is to make the operation as easy as possible for those persons who require holdings, and to give them a fair chance of carrying them on with success. There can be no doubt whatever that in Scotland, if a fourth part of the price has to be paid down, the Government would exclude from the advantages of the Bill those whom it is intended to benefit. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that it is necessary to call upon the tenants to pay a fourth part down; and if this section is retained, those who want to acquire these holdings will not be able to do so.

MR. STOREY

There are some Members in this quarter of the House who are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the care he has shown in the interests of the ratepayers. I want to know where the security for the ratepayers appears in this Amendment? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to his resolution to safeguard their interests. We, as Radicals, have had to remonstrate against the Government passing measures which a Radical Government would not pass for England and Wales. The cases, it is said, are not quite the same, because in Ireland there is more security; but I invite hon. Members to remember that, when the Government at first proposed to make advances to the people of Ireland, it was a proposal to advance a portion of the money only. Then the proposal grew, and, influenced by the pressure of Irish Members, the Government came ultimately with a proposal to advance the whole of the purchase money. By a succession of measures was this done, and for this we owe a Conservative Government little thanks. I feel that the operation will be the same under this Bill. The Government are, we assume, going to pass this measure now, advancing three-fourths of the money only; but does not the right hon. Gentleman see on this side of the House the revolutionary elements which by-and-bye will compel his successor to propose the advance of the whole of the money? I see these indications; and it is because I foresee them now, as I foresaw them in the case of Ireland, that I take the liberty of protesting against this method of using public money. Therefore I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the security he is inserting in the Bill; but I submit that it is not at all sufficient. Speaking for the county of Durham, I do not think the Bill will be much used, and I do not quite see why the miners, the capitalists, the manufacturing and trading classes, and those who go to make up the population of Durham, should find this public money without some return. I know how far this argument would carry me if developed, but the proposal now is that the security shall be abolished; and I contend that not only should we retain the security, but we should have some return to the body politic in exchange for the credit we are lending to these persons. I am not going to vote for the Amendment, but I am not supporting the Government in this. I am giving effect to my own opinions. I am not in favour of this Bill, and never have been in favour of it. I am told that we must not say too much against it because it would be bad electioneering. That is a very valid reason for saying little; but, so far as I am concerned, I am not afraid to say, here and in my own constituency, that this is a bad method of dealing with public money, and that I think the object you have in view is not being carried out in the general interest. Therefore I cannot vote for the Amendment, and have to choose between the Amendment, which would make the Bill more effectual at the ratepayers' expense, and the proposal of the Government to make it less effectual with more security to the ratepayers at large, and so I am driven into the same Lobby with the Government.

(6.40.) MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

Looking at the question from the point of view of security, and whether a County Council might be justified in lending the whole of the money, my belief is that if we adopted the Amendment now its effect would be that County Councils, as a rule, would be so afraid of the security that, practically, there would be no transactions under the Bill. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is no analogy between this Bill and the advances under the Act of last year. It is possible to advance all the money under the Irish Land Purchase Act, first, because you have the security of the tenant's interest, which in the great majority of cases is almost equal in amount to the landlord's interest; and, in the second place, you are able to buy land in Ireland at eighteen or twenty years' purchase, whereas in England you must pay thirty—or twenty-five years at the very least. On the whole, I am unable to support the proposal to advance the whole of the purchase money; but whether some further relief can be given at a later stage is a question for consideration hereafter. I conceive that the effect of the proposition that the whole of the purchase money shall be advanced will so lower the security as to prevent County Councils from taking action.

(6.42.) MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, which, I feel sure, will not conduce to the progress and smooth working of the Bill. We have heard a good deal about the advances made to Irish tenants, but there is a clear distinction between their case and the case under this Bill. Under the Irish Act we had to deal for the most part with the selling tenant—with the man in possession; and that very sensitive person, the ratepayer, did not come into the transaction, the advances being made from the National Fund from the Exchequer in the case of Ireland. Here we ask a body elected by the ratepayers, who have the responsibility of administering the ratepayers' money, to buy land without any security whatever against loss. It has been said that the first instalment is security, but it is not sufficient security against the loss that may follow an ill-judged attempt of a man to farm a small holding to his own loss and the ruin of the land. There must be the protection to the ratepayers for the necessary good working of the Bill of some sum—not a large sum—but some amount advanced by the would-be purchaser, sufficient to show his bona fides. Without such a protection to the ratepayers, I feel quite sure that in the rural districts of England ratepayers will make this an Election question if they are likely to sustain such losses, and they will exact pledges from County Council candidates. We want to bring the ratepayers into sympathy with the Bill and with its operation, and this we can do if we can show them that only a reasonable risk can in any case be run. In the interest of the good working of the Bill, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment, because I understand the right hon. Gentleman will be ready to consider the question of allowing this amount of a quarter of the purchase money to be somewhat, reduced, making the terms easier for-the purchaser, while requiring him to> give some security for his bona fides.

(6.45.) MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith, &c.)

The question for decision is the terms upon which it will be safe for the County Council to carry out the principle of the Bill. We are asked to choose between giving responsibilty to the County Council or declaring that the County Council is not fit to be entrusted with the power of making a bargain giving sufficient protection to the ratepayers. For my part, I can see no objection to the County Council having liberty to make such arrangements as they choose for the security of the ratepayers against loss. The Bill proposes to make it obligatory upon the new owners to pay a certain proportion of the purchase money, but I think a County Council may very well be trusted to take the necessary precautions on behalf of the ratepayers, whose representatives they are. Even if any ground for taking such a precaution as this existed the putting it in the Bill will greatly tend to make the Bill inoperative. In Scotland I do not think that a very large amount per acre will be required to start a small holding, certainly not in the northern part of the country; but if you insist on this fourth of the purchase money being paid down, I am afraid little good will come of the Bill so far as Scotland is concerned. It will amount to taking from the purchaser just that amount he requires to start himself in his new undertaking to become a proprietor. If the Amendment is withdrawn I hope the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Haddington Mr. Haldane), will take its place.

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

I quite agree there is no analogy between cases under this Bill and under the Irish Land Purchase Acts, but it should be remembered we had two Irish Acts under which the tenant had to find a fourth of the purchase money, and both these Acts were inoperative and little better than dead letters. The Acts of 1870 and of 1881 were dead letters, so far as the purchase clauses were concerned, solely because the fourth of the purchase money was required. It was not until the whole of the purchase money was advanced by the State under the Act of 1885 that any success in the direction of purchase by tenants was attained.

*(6.48.) MR. MORTON

I quite admit that to some extent—and to a large extent—the Irish tenant has a value in his holding; but there are a good many cases, as shown by the Returns presented last year, in which the Irish tenants could have had no value whatever, because the Government have had to take possession and re sell at a loss. Whether we decide upon this or upon the next Amendment does not concern me; but I do say that the hon. Member (Mr. T. W. Russell) who has just sat down proves the case for the Amendment, for he says the system was unsuccessful in Ireland until the State advanced the whole of the purchase money. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has mentioned electioneering tactics, and I should like to ask whether this Bill is not an electioneering Bill? I can assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) that unless he makes this Bill a bona fide useful Bill it will be of no use to him in the coming Election.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is going beyond the scope of the Amendment before the Committee.

*MR. MORTON

I will endeavour to keep more closely to the Amendment before us.

(6.49.) Mr. CHAPLIN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

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

(6.52.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 259; Noes 86.—(Div. List, No. 119.)

Question put accordingly.

(7.5.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 229.—(Div. List, No. 120.)

It being twenty minutes after Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House at Nine of the clock.