HC Deb 27 May 1892 vol 5 cc54-79

CONSIDERATION.

As amended, considered.

New Clause—

(Small Holdings to be personal property.)

Land comprised in a small holding shall be and shall remain personal property, and shall be dealt with in like manner and be subject to like rules of law as leasehold land. Provided that nothing in this section shall render any such land liable to probate duty or legacy duty, or exempt it from succession duty,"—(Mr. Chaplin,) —brought up, and read the first time.

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

As the House knows, I move this clause in fulfilment of a pledge I gave during the Committee stage of the Bill. I then undertook to look carefully into the matter, although I saw considerable objection to the proposal embodied in the clause. This clause is the result of subsequent consideration, but I am bound to say, at the same time, that the objections which I took to the clause at that time are still undiminished, as I think it eminently undesirable to deal with such a large matter in a Small Holdings Bill. Still, I felt that I should be departing from a pledge if I had not brought in the clause. I beg to move that it be read a second time.

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

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

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will return to the better opinion he held a week or two ago in this matter, and withdraw the clause altogether. The proposal is to impose an exceptional treatment of these small holdings, as distinguished from other land, and I think that is unnecessary and objectionable. I understand the right hon. Gentleman only moves the first of the two clauses now, the one dealing with Succession Duty.

MR. CHAPLIN

Yes, the Succession Duty Clause.

*MR. T. H. BOLTON

I do not quite Understand what is meant by the concluding part of the paragraph "rules of law as leasehold land." What are the rules as to leasehold land distinguishing it from other personal property? I am not aware of any special rules of law dealing with leasehold land, and I cannot understand what the words refer to. The clause would be quite clear if the words after "personal property" were left out. The subsequent words only suggest and introduce difficulties in dealing with it.

MR. CHAPLIN

I will undertake to have the wording altered if that will satisfy the hon. Member.

*MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will preserve the clause—not necessarily in its integrity as to the wording; but the substance of the clause is only introduced to carry out the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman as announced to the Committee. I have always thought that the easiest way to deal with real property subject to Succession Duty was to treat it as leasehold property. The clause is a reasonable and proper one for carrying out the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to the Committee.

MR. DARLING (Deptford)

I rather hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton). Apparently, the intention of the clause is that the holding shall be treated as real property in all respects except one; and that is, that it shall be divisible among the survivors of the owner as personal property; but before the clause is withdrawn or modified, I should like to know what was aimed at by the draftsman who put in those words? With regard to the rules of law as to leasehold land, the first is that at the end of the lease the land goes back to the person who granted the lease. That is the only distinct law to which leasehold land is subject. How long is this lease for? As long as the right hon. Gentleman is in office or for a shorter term? How long are the holdings to be subject to these rules? This tinkering with the law relating to land will lead to great evil considering what this Bill is to do. We are about to fix on the soil a most deserving class, something like the old yeoman farmer, in whose case the land passed from father to son for generations. Suddenly the right hon. Gentleman says every time a tenant dies there is to be a division among his family, or, if the holding is too small, it is to be sold and the proceeds divided. This is a question of principle and not of form, and before we pass the clause I should like to know exactly what is meant by saying that the holdings are to be dealt with like leasehold land?

*SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, North West)

I think anyone will agree that the alteration of this clause is a step in a direction which ought to be very carefully considered before it is adopted. We are taking a step which may extend to all real property in the country. I say that we ought not by a side issue in the middle of a Bill propound a proposal of such magnitude and importance as that in this clause. My right hon. Friend may not have altered his view on the matter; but had I been in his place in the Committee, I would have gone to a Division and been defeated, if it was to be so, on so grave a point rather than have given way. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that leasehold property reverts to the owner at the expiration of the lease; but is there not something more in the wording of the clause?— Land comprised in a small holding shall be and shall remain personal property. That may be taken to mean that when it has reverted to the original owner it shall still remain personal property, and that is a point which deserves most serious consideration.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

I should like a little more explanation of the last two lines of the clause. Apparently in some cases the holding will be sold and the money divided; and I fear in that case the successors would have to pay both Probate and Legacy Duty, and not merely Succession Duty, which would be very unfair on these poor people on whom we desire to confer the benefit of paying only one duty. If the explanation of that part of the clause is not satisfactory, I shall move an Amendment unless I should be in order in moving it now.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must move his Amendment after the clause has been read a second time.

MR. HERBERT T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham)

I wish to say a few words in support of the protest my hon. and gallant Friend has made against the adoption of this clause. It seems to be objectionable on two grounds: It deals with an important question by a side wind, and practically abolishes the law of primogeniture in a Bill dealing with small holdings; and I do not think this is the proper time to discuss such a matter. If the clause is adopted, it will defeat the object of the Bill. I hope my right hon. Friend will adhere to his former view and withdraw the clause

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

No one who has followed the action of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will protest against the introduction of this clause. The principle was assented to after a good deal of discussion, and it cannot, therefore, be now withdrawn. My own opinion is entirely in favour of the adoption of the clause. As to the wording of the clause, that is a matter which can be considered after it has been read a second time. I may point out that the rule of descent is one of the rules of law as to leasehold land.

(3.10.) MR. CHAPLIN

I stated at the commencement of my observations that this clause was introduced by me on this occasion in virtue of what I considered, after carefully re-examining the question, to be a pledge binding on me, and from which I could not depart. I stated, also, that my own objection to the clause was undiminished; but that in virtue of the pledge I took the only course open to me. I must remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me (Sir Walter Barttelot) that upon the question of principle the-Government were pledged already, as the principle of this clause is embodied in a Bill they have already introduced themselves; and the only ground, therefore, which I had to consider was the ground of expediency. I repeat that, personally, on the ground of expediency, I do think it unreasonable that this question should be dealt with in a fragmentary way; but it is beyond the scope of this Bill to deal with it as a whole, and I felt myself bound to carry out the pledge to introduce this clause. I will take care that words shall be inserted in another place, if necessary, to make the meaning perfectly clear. But I believe myself the clause will be sufficient in itself. Under these circumstances, I hope the Committee will agree not to discuss the question further, but come to a decision without delay.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

I think hon. Members opposite very much magnify this matter. As I understand it, this was simply intended to prevent the misfortune which these small holders are liable to fall into—that is the misfortune arising from these small holders dying without making a will. It is well-known that these small men will not make a will; and there have been a good many instances, in the absence of a clause like this, where a man has died without making a will, and his-wife and children have lost all their little property, which has gone to a stranger, or to some cousin, or other person as the next heir.

Motion agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

(3.13.) MR. PICTON

I beg to move the omission of the last two lines of the clause. I do not think it fair or right that this provision should be put in at all. When we are introducing a new class of landowners in this way, I think we should be taking a very false step to adopt such a provision as this. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the omission of these two lines—four and five of the clause.

Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out from the word "land" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Picton.)

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

Clause added.

MR. CHAPLIN

I now have to move another clause, which is again in fulfilment of a pledge which I gave when this Bill was going through Committee. The point was raised in debate on one occasion by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) that at the close of the ten years during which the new owner would be subject to certain conditions, and after the period when he had paid off the whole of the purchase-money, it might happen that land which had been taken from and sold by an adjoining landlord might be used for purposes which might be a nuisance and a great injury to the community; and that, therefore, the owners of property, with that fear and apprehension in their minds, would be slow to sell, and thus prevent the bringing of the provisions of this Bill into operation. The right hon. Gentleman stated as a compromise between his view and my own that I might introduce a clause providing for the pre-emption of the land by either the adjoining owners, or the original owner, or the County Council, in the event of the new owner of the holding desiring to part with it for purposes other than agriculture. I have considered the question, and I have submitted the clause in its present form for the consideration of the House. I think it will meet the main object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view; that is to say, to remove the fear of injury or the unwillingness to sell the land on the part of the existing landowners. I hope the House will agree to accept this clause.

New Clause—

(Right of pre-emption.)

If at any time after the restrictive conditions imposed by this Act have ceased to attach to a small holding, the owner of the holding desires to use or sell the holding for purposes other than agriculture, he shall before so doing offer the holding for sale to the person or persons whose lands immediately adjoin the holding, and sections one hundred and twenty-seven to one hundred and thirty of 'The Lands Clauses Act, 1845,' shall apply as if the owner of the small holding were the promoter of the undertaking, and the holding were superfluous lands within the meaning of those sections,"—(Mr. Chaplin,) —brought up, and read the first time.

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

*MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON

I can only repeat the protest which I made against putting this embarrassing infliction upon the people, who, you propose, should become landowners under this Bill. I believe the object of the clause is to have some provision or condition hanging over the property to prevent it being speculated in by persons who want to build on it or to make profit out of it rather than to cultivate it themselves; but I do not think this clause will effectually carry out that object. I think the practical effect of this clause will be to make this property almost unmarketable. The provisions of the Lands Clauses Act are inapplicable to these small holdings; and if this clause be adopted it will necessitate long and expensive inquiries, which may entail heavy costs upon small holders. These people having paid their money and bought their little property ought to be as free to deal with it as any other owners who have purchased property. Why you should inflict possible loss and practical restriction upon the land is beyond my comprehension. Your object is to encourage these men to invest their little money in the purchase of these properties; and while you have that good object in view, you propose to hang over these people the right of compulsory purchase by an adjoining owner. Why adjoining owner? Why should it not be the original owner? And if adjoining owners, which of the adjoining owners? After cutting up land into sections for these small holdings adjoining owners would probably be two or three of these small holders, whose land may bound this land which you propose to sell. Which of these small holders is to have the right of purchase? You are hanging over these small properties a condition which will be absolutely destructive to them in the market. Who would buy with the liability of being compelled, in certain events quite likely to happen, at any time to sell by arbitration, with the liability to pay the costs of the arbitration? It is altogether a most damaging and injurious provision. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way, in view of the difficulties it would cause, to withdraw the clause altogether; but in its present form it is quite clear that it ought to be amended.

MR. THOMAS ELLIS (Merionethshire)

I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman seriously proposes this clause, and the objection taken by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to me to apply quite as much to the original owner as to the adjoining owners. Neither of these classes of persons have the slightest or the remotest shade of a claim upon this land, or to a claim to exercise the right of pre-emption. The adjoining owner has done nothing to entitle him to claim to exercise this right over this land to which Parliament thought fit to attach a certain reversion, and with respect to which Parliament gave facilities for creating small holdings. The original owner has no claim whatever upon the land, because he has been paid the full price for it in the open market by a public authority. If the land is to revert at all it should revert to the County Council, the only body that has any claim or any right of preemption over this land, and which represents all the ratepayers within the county. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not ask us to spend any more of the time of the House in trying to force on us a clause which is thoroughly inexcusable, and which, if passed, there is no doubt whatever will cause all manner of heart-burning and endless litigation, and do no good whatever to the community. If the right hon. Gentleman persists in bringing the forces of the Government to bear in order to carry this clause and succeeds, we shall move a number of Amendments upon the clause, the chief one of which will be that the right of preemption shall be given to the County Council of the county in which the holding is situated. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will save the time of the House by giving an intimation that this Amendment will be accepted.

*MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

Certainly I think the clause, as it is framed, is open to very serious objection. I understood in the course of the discussion which took place on this subject in Committee that the general view was that if any owner of one of these small holdings desired to sell it for other purposes, the right of pre-emption should be given to the County Council, and not to the former owner or to the adjoining owner. But under the clause the County Council will have no right of pre-emption whatever. The right of pre-emption is given not to the former owner of the property, who sold and severed it from his estate, but to all or any of the adjoining owners of the land immediately adjoining the small holding. Let me illustrate it by a case: Suppose that a small holding becomes valuable for building purposes quite unexpectedly in consequence of a railway coming into the neighbourhood, or for any other reason; under this clause this unearned increment will go not to the owner of the small holding, not to the County Council by whose money the small holder was enabled to become the owner of his holding, not even to the original owner of the property, but to the adjoining owner. ("No, no!") That, I understand, is the meaning of the clause.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

The small holder.

*MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

Not necessarily. It may be some great adjoining landowner, who would never sell his property. I do not think that can be the intention of the Government. It seems to me that, on the whole, the wise course to adopt would be, if the principle of reversion be introduced at all, if the right of pre-emption be given to anybody, it should be given to the County Council by whom the land was originally purchased from the original owner and sold again for the purpose of small holdings. But I do not think it would be desirable, if the County Council were unwilling to take it, that the former owner should have it. The increment of value arising from this property should go to the owner of the small holding, or else to the County Council. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press this clause in its present shape.

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

Some clause of this kind is absolutely necessary, not in the interest of the landowner, but to protect the small holder from the land speculator. There are two great reasons why a clause of this kind was asked for. First of all it was held that landlords could not be found to sell under these conditions, when, at the end of ten years, the land might get into the hands of some speculative builder who might erect factories or jerry buildings or anything which might become a nuisance. The other reason was to protect the small holding from getting into the hands of the land speculator, who thought he could do better with it than let it remain a small holding. My right hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing the unearned increment will go to the landlord; it will go to the small holder, because the landlord will have to pay the actual worth of the land at the present time. But my purpose, and the purpose of the Government, is to retain these small holdings as small holdings, and I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the clause should read in this way: We should give the right of pre-emption to the County Council for the purpose of the small holding, and then if the County Council does not want to buy—and for my part I do not care who gets it if it is left a small holding—we should give the right to the original landowner or his successors in title, or to the neighbouring landowner. We are now dealing with the one blot in what is a very good Bill. Under a subsequent clause the small holdings are only to remain intact for ten years. If the right hon. Gentleman will give the County Council the right of pre-emption, and failing them the original landowner or his successors in title or the neighbouring landowner, then I think he will secure, as far as can be secured at present, that these small holdings shall remain as small holdings, and will protect the small holder from his great enemy—the man who wants to take advantage of some needy time in order to buy the small holding from him. If, in addition to that, the right hon. Gentleman will, in a subsequent Amendment, extend the ten years I think we shall make this into a good Bill. The effect of the clause so amended will be to keep the small holding as a cultivated small holding for the utmost possible time.

(3.35.) MR. ALFRED GATHORNE-HARDY (Sussex, East Grinstead)

I think it is quite easy to discuss this, clause without heat, though there seems to be something in the very words, "unearned increment," which is calculated to raise heat. The question of unearned increment going to the landlord does not arise in any shape or form in this clause. There-must be some means of the small holder-dealing with the property, provided that for some reason or another it is undesirable to carry it on as a small holding. This clause gives, in these circumstances, the right of pre-emption-to the landowner of the adjoining holding. I think it really ought to be to the original seller. "Whatever may be the-price, either by agreement or by arbitration, the unearned increment will go to the small proprietor who-originally had it. I think some right of pre-emption should rest with the person originally selling, for these-reasons—that we desire that this Act should work freely; we desire to give the landowners an inducement to sell to those who are willing to carry out the objects of this Act. Well, I think they will be much less ready to sell if, at the time that their property has ceased to be used for the purposes of the Act, it might go into the hands of-the County Council, or of anybody else who might happen to buy it without their having any voice in the matter; and for that reason, seeing it is no—question of the landlord making a profit,, and seeing it will facilitate the working of the Act, I hope my right hon. Friend will adhere to the clause as it stands, subject to this, that he might substitute "original owner" for "adjoining owners."

MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

I am glad to be in absolute accordance with the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) on this question. I think it was distinctly understood that a clause would be introduced by the Government to the effect that, if we are going to advance public money in this way, we would not be checkmated by the land-grabber or the speculative builder, and that these places should not be perverted from being small holdings. Then when it came to the means which we should adopt, I think there was a general concurrence of opinion, first of all, that the County Council, being the popular authority, should have the first right of pre-emption merely in order that they should continue these small holdings as small holdings; and failing the power of the County Council to continue them as small holdings, there is only one person who ought to have the right of pre-emption, and that is the landlord who sold the land in the first instance. I never heard anything more absurd or ridiculous than this question of adjoining landlord. You might have one landlord on the north, another on the south, another on the east, and another on the west. Are they going to toss up who shall have the power proposed to be given? The only person who has any right, when it ceases to be a small holding, is the landlord who has been willing and ready to put his land, without any compulsory powers, into the hands of the County Council for the purpose of these small holdings; and he has a right to be protected from having a lot of buildings put on his property which might very likely be a great nuisance. I cannot imagine why, after that particular Amendment of the hon. Member for Bordesley which carried out exactly what the House intended, and what I believe we all understood, this Amendment should ever have been put on the Paper. It is past altering and past amending, and I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to save the time of the House, and accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley, and settle the question.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (, &c.) Carnarvon

I do not think this clause answers its ostensible object. That I understand is to facilitate the sale of land for the purpose of small holdings, and of offering some inducement to the owner and some prospect that when the small holding ceases to be used for that purpose, there will be the power of re-entry. That will not be the result as the clause stands—the original owner must be the adjoining owner. Suppose, for instance, that the County Council makes a purchase. They would not purchase five acres here and five acres there. They would probably make a purchase of a whole farm of, say, a hundred or two hundred acres, and parcel that out into twenty or thirty small holdings. The result would be that a small holding might be a portion in the middle of thirty or forty others parcelled out of the farm. Under these circumstances, then, the person who would be entitled, under this proposed clause, to purchase the superfluous land would not be the original owner, but some adjoining small owner, or perhaps a dozen small holders, whose lands will be contiguous to the one not used. This seems to be based upon some idea that we are following the clause of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, but there are some important distinctions between that Act and this provision. The most practical distinction is this: that in the case of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act the powers are generally used for the purpose of buying or selling land, to make a railway, and in a case of that character it is very proper you should give the original owner the right to purchase superfluous lands. But there is nothing of the same kind in this case as in the case of making a railway. You buy a whole farm, and parcel it into small holdings. There you have not got a strip of land passing through the estate for a commercial purpose, such as a railway. It is simply the distribution of one whole farm into so many small farms, and the provision in this case is utterly inadequate. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bordesley, and give the right of pre-emption to the County Council, who alone, it seems to me, have a reasonable right to have such a power.

MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S)

If I vote for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman it will be in the hope that he will afterwards accept the proposal to place the County Council first in this right of pre-emption. Throughout the Debate on this Bill hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their desire to protect the small holdings from that land speculator, but I am afraid this would rather play into the hands of the land speculator. My hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley spoke of the County Council having the right of pre-emption, with the sole purpose of that right being exercised in order to keep the land for the purpose of small holdings; but it seems to me that if the circumstances such as were contemplated by the right hon. Member for Bradford did arise, it would be in the power of the County Council to keep the land strictly to the purpose of small holdings. The purchase money might be so great as to prevent the transaction being an economical one. Therefore, in giving the right of preemption to a County Council I would suggest that they should be allowed to exercise the right primarily for the purpose of small holdings, but subject to the consent of the Local Government Board for any other public purpose. It is quite conceivable that these small holdings, at the time this clause comes into operation, may be in the centre of a great town, and be then unsuitable as such; but the land would be eminently suitable for some public purposes, such as a park, and I would give the County Council the right to retain it for such purposes, subject to the consent of the Local Government Board. Although I shall vote for the Second Reading of this clause, as it includes the principle of the right of pre-emption, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will afterwards consent to give that right primarily to the County Council.

(3.47.) MR. CHAPLIN

Many criticisms have been made on this clause, and questions have been asked as to the adjoining owner who is named in the clause. One gentleman went so far as to say that he never in his life read so absurd a clause. As a matter of fact the clause is well known, it having been taken from the precedent of the sale of superfluous lands purchased by railways; and that hon. Member will find that I have practically adopted the language and meaning of certain sections of the Lands Clauses Act. I recognise that the clause does not meet with general approval as it is, and I am quite willing to try to amend it. I think the best way would be to amend the clause so as to include all the interests, involved, and for that purpose I shall accept the suggestion that the right of pre-emption should be offered in the first instance to the County Council from whom the land was purchased; in the second instance to the original owner or his successor in title; and in the third instance to the adjoining owners, and the mode in which the priority of the adjoining owners is to be settled is prescribed in the latter part of the clause as it now stands. If the House accepts my proposal, and will read the clause a second time, I shall move Amendments to carry it out.

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

The House will, I am sure, recognise the very conciliatory spirit shown by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, and I imagine that, so far as the question of the persons to whom the right of pre-emption is to be given is concerned, the concession which he has just made will be perfectly satisfactory to the House. But there is one point to which he did not allude—I do not know whether he has considered it—in regard to which I think this clause is somewhat defective. We had two objects in dealing with this matter. The first was that land devoted to the purchase of small holdings under this Act should remain employed for that purpose as long as possible. There may be circumstances which may make it impossible to continue the small holdings; but so long as possible the House desires the land to remain as small holdings. The second object we had in view was to prevent a landlord from being discouraged from selling land for the purpose of small holdings by the fear that, after the land had been acquired for that purpose, the small owner might change his mind and enter into building speculation, and thus, without the consent of the original landowner, make a different use of the land and reduce the value of the surrounding property. Under the clause as it stands at present the owner of the small holding, if entitled to the increased value of the land, will be tempted to make a large profit by selling it for building purposes. Land which a small holder may have bought for £100 near a large town may in a few years become worth £1,000 Here, then, is the temptation to the owner of the small holding to give up its cultivation in order to sell it for building purposes, which is an evil we wish to avoid. The only fair proposition, in my opinion, would be to say that should the small holder no longer wish to keep the land he shall be only able to sell it at its agricultural value. That would take from him the temptation of giving it up for building purposes. Now, that is a most important point; and as the clause of my right hon. Friend does not deal with it, I hope that some provision will be introduced for that purpose.

(3.52.) MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

I take an entirely different view to that of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. It is a great venture to go in for land at all, and I consider that if a man puts his money into a small holding and takes the risk he ought to reap the advantage if the land increases in value.

MR. DUGDALE (Warwickshire, Nuneaton)

I am afraid there would be some difficulty in arranging matters with adjoining owners. Suppose there is a small holding bounded on all sides by the property of adjoining owners, how far is the Hinterland to extend? I think it is desirable that we should know that.

Motion agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

(3.55.) MR. CHAPLIN

I now move to insert, in line 4, after the word "sale"— First to the County Council from whom the holding was purchased, next to the person or persons, if any, then entitled to the lands from which the holding was originally severed and then.

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

MR. THOMAS ELLIS (Merionethshire)

I hope the Committee will not assent to this proposition. It seems to me that when once the County Council refuses to take the land for its own purposes, the small holder himself should have the next claim to it.

An hon. MEMBER: No.

MR. ELLIS

Most certainly. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with giving the right of pre-emption to the County Council only. Having bought the land the County Council should have power to use it for such purposes as they may think will best serve the interests of the locality.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

If the Committee will allow these words to be inserted, we could go on to the next sentence of the clause as to the adjoining owners, and it would not be necessary to deal with the question in three gradations.

MR. CHAPLIN

I would not object to strike out the words referring to the adjoining owners.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

I would suggest that the words "and then" should be left out.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

The right hon. Gentleman proposes to give the right of pre-emption to the County Council, but he also uses these words— Next to the person or persons, if any, then entitled to the lands from which the holding was originally severed. Now, it is possible that the property may be broken up into two or three parts, and that there may be several owners. It will be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to consider that before going further.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from the word "purchased" to the end of the proposed Amendment. — (Mr. Channing.)

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

Words inserted.

MR. HALDANE

Shall I now be in order in moving that the words "and then" be omitted?

MR. SPEAKER

No.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept only the last clause of the Amendment which stands in my name, as the first part is now practically embodied in the Bill. My Amendment is to add to the New Clause the following:— The price of such re-purchase shall be the value of the land as agricultural land, together with fair compensation for all improvements made for the small holder or his predecessors.

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

MR. CHAPLIN

I am sorry to say I cannot accept this Amendment. The Committee will recollect that throughout the whole discussion on this Bill I have always claimed for new holders that they should ultimately have the right to acquire the freehold of the property. I could not, at this stage of the Bill, go back from the view which I have pressed upon the House throughout with regard to that point. I can quite understand the arguments that may be used against my view of the case; but I have carefully considered the subject, and I feel that there could be no greater deterrent to the new holders whom we desire to see created from embarking on the purchase of these holdings than the knowledge of the fact that if the holdings should increase in value, and they desire to part with them, they would receive a price which might be much less than the market value—a price which would, in fact, be only the agricultural value.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I will, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, added.

*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,) Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities

I beg to move, in page 10, after Clause 21, to insert the following Clause:—

(Modification as to succession to small holdings in Scotland.)

In lieu of section of this Act, the following provisions shall have effect in Scotland:—Land comprised in a small holding shall, for the purposes of succession, be deemed to be moveable property, provided that the titles to such land, and any securities affecting the same, shall be continued to be made up and recorded according to the present law and practice, except in so far as varied by the provisions of this Act. Provided that nothing in this section shall render any such land liable to inventory or probate duty or exempt it from succession duty.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—(Sir C. J. Pearson.)

MR. CUST (Lincolnshire, Stamford)

I should like to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scotch law is different from the English law with reference to the protection of rights in such holdings?

*SIR C. J. PEARSON

This is entirely a consequential clause. There will be no difficulty in Scotland on the point raised by the hon. Member.

Motion agreed to.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

On Motion of Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out from "the County Council," to "County Council," in line 35, inclusive, and insert similar words after line 2, page 3.

MR. CHAPLIN

Before the hon. Gentleman moves his next Amendment, I would ask to be allowed to propose that which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Devon (Mr. Seale-Hayne). It is as follows:—Clause 4, page 2, line 40, leave out from "Provided," to "remove," in line 41, and insert "and."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I will now move the following Amendment which stands in my name:— Clause 4, page 3, after line 2, insert "The County Council shall have power to sell, or, in the case of small holdings which may be let, to let, one or more small holdings to a number of persons working on a co-operative system, provided such system be approved by the County Council.

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

SIR HORACE DAVEY (Stockton)

I do not understand the meaning of the words of the hon. Member's Amendment. I do not know what he means by "persons working on a co-operative system." The words have no legal meaning. It is one of those Amendments put across the floor of the House and accepted, and which later cost a great deal of time and much expense. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will so alter his Amendment that it may have a reasonable chance of being understood. I can only understand the words to mean a Joint Stock Company. In my experience most Co-operative Societies are Joint Stock Companies. I do not know whether the hon. Member deems it likely that a Joint Stock Company will take a small holding.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 5.

MR. COBB

The Amendment standing in my name merely proposes to carry into effect a promise the right hon. Gentleman gave to the Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 19, leave out sub-section (3), and insert the following sub-section:—(3.) "If any councillor representing or alderman residing in any part of a county in which it is alleged that there is a demand for small holdings is not a member of the committee, he shall be added to the committee for the consideration of the alleged demand."—(Mr. Cobb.)

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 6.

*MR. MORTON (Peterborough)

I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. When we were in Committee on this Bill I had an Amendment of similar purport, and my object in repeating it is to afford the right hon. Gentleman another opportunity of considering what proportion of the purchase-money shall be advanced. As the Bill at present stands, only eighty per cent. can be advanced to the purchaser by the County Council. My proposal means that, if the County Council thought fit, it should be permitted to advance ninety per cent. I venture to urge this matter upon the right hon. Gentleman, because, as I have before pointed out, we have agreed to advance the Irish tenant the whole amount of the purchase-money. I confess I cannot see why England, Scotland, and Wales should not be treated on equal terms.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 32, leave out "one fifth," and insert "ten per cent."—(Mr. Morton.)

*MR. SPEAKER

The Amendment of the hon. Member is out of Order. It deals with a subject which cannot be submitted while I am in the Chair.

Clause 8.

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

I beg to move the Amendment in my name— Page 4, at end, add "and an entry in the register shall be admissible as evidence of the title of the person to whom the entry relates.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I have an Amendment to move to this clause. When we were in Committee I proposed to leave out the word "ten." The right hon. Gentleman did not commit himself to any promise, but he said that he was open to consider whether or not he could lengthen the term to which the restrictive clause should apply. I ask him now to make the period thirty years instead of ten. Although I can see objections to making the clause permanent, yet I consider ten years altogether too brief a period. After the land is bought, the small holder will enter on his work, and in a few years will be subjected to the tactics of some land speculator who has an eye on the small holding. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to extend the term to thirty years, he would do much, I consider, to secure the good working of his Bill. Under Clause 9, Sub-section 6, the County Councils are allowed to sell these small holdings without any conditions whatever, and that seems to me fully to meet any special occasions that may arise.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 34, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "thirty."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Bill."

MR. CHAPLIN

As the hon. Member says, it is quite true that I made no pledge on this subject. I did, however, make an offer to extend the period of ten years, which was inserted in order to guard against the danger that has been so frequently pointed out. I am not prepared to accept the substitute of thirty years which the hon. Member proposes, but I am willing to make a compromise, and to insert the word "twenty" instead of "ten."

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 34, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "twenty."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

Amendment agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. CHAPLIN, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 4, line 39, after the first "shall" insert "unless let with the consent of the County Council;" Page 5, line 40, at end, add— (8.) Nothing in or done under this section shall derogate from the effect of any building or sanitary bye-laws for the time being in force.

On Motion of Mr. HALDANE, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Clause 11, page 6, line 14, after "a," insert "person having the powers of a."

On Motion of the ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Clause 11, page 6, line 20, leave out all after "obtained," to end of Clause.

On Motion of Mr. HALDANE, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Clause 12, page 6, line 23, after "a," insert "person having the powers of a."

On Motion of Mr. CHAPLIN, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Clause 15, page 7, line 18, after "situate," insert "and"; line 19, after "council," insert "and."

Amendment proposed, In Clause; 15, page 7, line 24, after "managers," insert "or if the holdings are situate within the limits of a municipal borough, then, instead of the persons selected or appointed as aforesaid, two members of the borough council."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

Am I right in understanding that in the case of land inside the limits of a municipal borough, the management is to be composed of two members of the borough, and nobody else?

MR. CHAPLIN

No; they are in addition.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

The Amendment I now propose is one which the right hon. Gentleman promised to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer about. It is to omit the words— Not less than three pounds two shillings and sixpence per cent. per annum. As the clause stands it binds the Commissioners to lend money at this rate. The consequence will be that if the Treasury can lend money for three per cent. without loss they will be obliged to charge the Local Authority £3 2s. 6d., which means the imposition of a tax upon the Local Authorities of two shillings and sixpence per cent. per annum.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 6, to leave out the words "not less than three pounds two shillings and sixpence per cent."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)

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

MR. CHAPLIN

I have to regret the result of the undertaking I gave. I have conferred with the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, indeed, I may go so far as to say that I earnestly pressed this upon him. I am bound to say, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave reasons to me, which I thought were quite sufficient to justify him in declining to accede to the proposal. I was very sorry to arrive at that conclusion, because I was anxious to attain the same object as my hon. Friend; but I am consoled by this reflection: that the credit of the County Council is so good, and their borrowing powers so ample, that they are not by any means limited to Government loans. They have ample opportunities of borrowing money for this purpose on favourable terms.

MR. MORTON (Peterborough)

I have a similar Amendment to this down on the Paper. The Government have offered to advance money to Irish tenants at two and three-quarters-per cent., and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show the same consideration for the English, Scotch, and Welsh people in this matter. I think this Motion involves an important point, because in my opinion the Bill will be of very little use, if any, unless the small holders can borrow money at a low rate of interest. If people are willing to pay a high rate of interest the assistance of an Act of Parliament is unnecessary.

MR. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I also think some good reasons should be shown for proposing to make the people of Great Britain pay a higher rate of interest for advances than is charged to Irishmen. This Bill is an experiment, and the Treasury ought to be satisfied if they can carry its provisions into effect without making a loss. The amount required will not be so large as to endanger the financial stability of the country, especially in view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to pay off a large amount of the National Debt. I think three per cent. ought to be the most that should be charged to these small holders for advances.

*MR. GOSCHEN

I admit that the matter, as far as this particular Bill is concerned, is not one of supreme importance, but from the point of view of the credit of the State and its loan transactions it is of considerable importance. At the present time loans of public moneys are advanced to Local Authorities under a great variety of Acts, and in these Acts a rate of interest is prescribed corresponding to that laid down in the Bill now before the House. For instance, the Sanitary Loans, School Board Loans, and Loans under the Allotment Act, et cetera, are charged three and a-half per cent., when repayable in not more than thirty-five years, and three and three-quarters per cent. when repayable in not more than forty years. Loans under the Housing of the Working Classes Act repayable in not more than twenty years are charged three and one-eighth per cent.; for thirty years, three and a quarter per cent.; and for forty years three and three-eighths per cent. Harbour Loans with collateral security of rates are granted at three and a quarter per cent. for any period up to fifty years. If the rate of interest is lowered in this particular case, all these Local Authorities will come down upon the Treasury and Parliament complaining that they are paying excessive rates of interest for their loans. I hope it is not thought that I am dealing with this matter in any churlish spirit, and I appeal to hon. Members not to endanger the general system of loans granted by the State for the sake of the very small difference in this particular case. My right hon. Friend. (Mr. Chaplin) has pointed out that the credit of the County Councils is such that they will be probably able to borrow at three per cent.; but, be that as it may, I think I have pointed out to the Committee that strong reasons exist for declining this Amendment, much as I am anxious to promote the general success of the Bill.

MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)

The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has said that the County Councils can borrow money at three per cent., and I do not think there will be any difficulty about the matter. It seems quite clear that if the loans were granted in this case at three per cent., no higher rate of interest should be charged to the various other bodies the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 19.

On Motion of Mr. DUGDALE (Warwickshire, Nuneaton) the following Amendment was agreed to:— Page 9, line 35, at end, add "but shall not include mines of coal, ironstone, slate, or other minerals, or any right or easement in connection therewith.

Clause 22.

On Motion of Sir C. J. PEARSON, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 11, line 12, leave out "section," and insert "sections"; page 11, line 12, after "ten," insert "eleven and twelve"; Clause 23, page 11, line 18, after "situate," insert "and."

SIR C. J. PEARSON

I beg to move— In page 11, line 26, after "Committee," insert "or if the holdings are situate within the limits of a burgh, then, instead of the persons elected as aforesaid, two Town Councillors or Commissioners, as the case may be, to be appointed for that purpose by the Town Council or Commissioners of such burgh.

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

MR. JOHN WILSON (Lanark, Govan)

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the word "burgh" refers to a police burgh as well as a Royal or Parliamentary burgh; and, if so, whether he would insert the word "any" before burgh?

SIR C. J. PEARSON

I shall have no objection to that.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.