LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 274.)

HC Deb 01 December 1893 vol 19 cc274-347

COMMITTEE. [Progress, 30th November.]

[ELEVENTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 9 (Powers of Parish Councils, acquisition of land).

Amendment proposed, In page 7, line 16, to leave out from the word "may," to the end of Clause, and add the words "petition the County Council, and thereupon the provisions of Sections 3, 4, and 11 of 'The Allotments Act, 1887,' as to the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement, shall apply, with the substitution of 'Parish Council' for 'Sanitary Authority.' "—(Mr. W. Long.)

Question, again proposed, "That the words 'represent the case to the' stand part of the Clause."

Debate resumed.

MR. BUCKNILL (Surrey, Epsom)

said, that after the estimate just made by the Prime Minister of the despatch that should be made with the discussion of that clause—an estimate with which he could not agree—he, for one, would not stand in the way of that despatch longer than he could possibly help, although he might be allowed to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the President of the Local Government Board, in very generous language, on the preceding night invited them to treat the Debate on the clause as if it were a Second Reading one. So far, however, that very important clause had only been discussed for three hours. In his opinion, the machinery proposed by the Bill for the compulsory acquisition by purchase of land for allotments would not be more expeditious or less expensive than that provided by the Allotments Act. First of all, there would have to be some-thing in the nature of an inquiry by the Parish Council. They would have to consider whether the land asked for could be fairly used for allotments, whether the owner was unreasonable in not desiring to sell, and whether the price demanded for compulsory sale was a fair and proper price. The Parish Council would have to hear witnesses on both sides, and, when it had made up its mind that the land was suitable and the owner was asking unreasonable terms, it would go to the District Council, which would be obliged to hold an inquiry in the nature of a Court of second instance, and act really as a Court of Appeal for the Parish Council. Then if the District Council approved of the land and thought the owner unreasonable it would have to go to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order, and this would involve an inquiry by an Inspector. That inquiry would have to take its turn with others, the whole machinery of hearing evidence and speeches would have again to be set in motion, and finally from the Report of the Inspector there would be no appeal. He would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the facts of an inquiry of which he was personally cognisant. In the place in which he lived a scheme was drawn up for the better drainage of the town, and expensive plans were got out accord- ing to the directions of the Local Government Board, but later on an Inspector was sent down who condemned the scheme, and directed that another plan should be adopted. Was it impossible that a similar state of affairs should crop up under this Bill? They were told by the Secretary to the Local Government Board that tender care had been taken of the interests of the landowners who could arraign the Board, but he would remind the hon. Gentleman that there were poor land-owners as well as rich ones; and, whilst a rich one might take care of himself, it was ridiculous to say that a poor one could arraign the Local Government Board in that House because an Inspector had made a mistake. The existing machinery by which application was made by the Rural Sanitary Authority, first to the County Council and then to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order, was, he ventured to assert, more expeditious and economical than that proposed by the Bill would be. If in any case a Provisional Order had taken a long time to obtain, it must have been because some one or some authority had not performed the duty so quickly as it might have been transacted. What was the excuse given for the introduction of this new machinery? It was that they desired to make progress. But progress might be of two sorts—it might be healthy and it might be unhealthy, and if they did that which was unfair to parties interested, then the progress made was not healthy. He was sure that Members on both sides of the House desired to deal fairly with the interests of landowners while assisting labouring men to get allotments nearer their homes. No one wished that more keenly, or had worked harder to promote it, than he himself, but in doing this they ought not to be unfair to the owner of the land. Labourers might ask for a piece of land fronting a highway because it would be the site most convenient of access from their cottages, but it might also be the farmer's best means of access to the railway which had increased the value of the land and brought a population to the village, and it would be unfair to ask him to depreciate the value of his farm by parting with this particular piece of laud. He did not see why the framing of a Provisional Order—as provided for under Section 4 of the Act of 1887—should necessarily be expensive, and if so, then a remedy might be found. There could not be much necessity for lawyers in connection with them, and he would suggest a Standing Committee of both Houses consisting of practical men, who could settle these matters off-hand in a short time. The existing machinery had not had a fair trial, and he feared that if new machinery were substituted for it difficulties would arise, one of which would be the trouble of getting properly qualified men to conduct the inquiry which was to be held. Local Government Board Inspectors were very able men, but they did not necessarily possess those agricultural attainments and that knowledge which he believed were necessary for inquiries of this nature. He hoped, under these circumstances, that these provisions of the Bill would be withdrawn, and the existing machinery allowed to take their place.

MR. EDWARDS (Radnorshire)

said, the hon. Member had dwelt upon the machinery which would have to be set in motion if the Government's proposal were agreed to, but he had not explained the complicated process entailed by the existing system. First, they had a demand by six ratepayers; then an inquiry in the locality; next the effort of the Sanitary Authority to obtain land by hire or purchase; fourthly, the determination to buy compulsorily; fifthly, the determination of the County Council to apply to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order; sixthly, the application to the Local Government Board to approve a Provisional Order; and, finally, confirmation by Parliament, which might involve a costly inquiry at the expense of the Sanitary Authority. All this seemed likely to lead to greater expense than the proposals of the Bill. Hon. Members professed themselves anxious to give allotments to the people, and he was therefore astonished that they were opposing a proposal which would undoubtedly make the acquisition of allotments simpler and more easy. It had been claimed that the Allotments Act of the late Government had done a great deal of good in providing allotments, but in the constituency he had the honour to represent (Radnorshire) not a single allotment had been the result of that Act. The same was the case in many other constituencies. He listened with some astonishment last night to the statement made that land let for allotments came back greatly deteriorated, but this seemed to tell in favour of the scheme of the Government rather than against it. It was said by the Secretary to the Local Government Board in the last Administration that land was thrown back on the landlords' hands in an unkind state, but it was "unkind" land that was given for allotments. That was why they desired that the Local Authorities should have the power to take land that was suitable and fit for allotments.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

The hon. Member is drawing a most unfair inference from what I said last night. As must be well-known, experience is required to show whether the land is suitable for allotments.

MR. EDWARDS

At present there is an undoubted unwillingness to give land suitable for the purpose.

MR. W. LONG

No.

MR. EDWARDS

said, that at any rate there was a readiness to set apart unsuitable land, and if the Committee passed this compulsory power the Local Authorities would have power to see that the land was fit for the purpose for which it was intended. He could not admit that an effect of these provisions would be to decrease the price of allotments, neither did he believe that the owners of the land taken would suffer financially. Their security would in no way be. lessened; the Parish Council would not pay a lower rent than was now charged, and certainly a higher rent would be paid than was charged for land used for purely agricultural purposes. One of the chief defects in the present Allotments Act was the enormous rents that labourers had to pay for their allotments. He knew himself land which was worth, agriculturally, 15s. an acre fetching £5 and £6 when let in allotments. That was a state of things they wanted to avoid. They wanted to take care that Local Authorities did not pay more than a fair market value. They wanted to make sure that landowners should not be able to exact the ruinous rents which they obtained from allotment-holders now. He listened with great astonishment to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley last night. There was no man who had done more for the agricultural labourer than the right hon. Gentleman. It was with pleasure he heard him say he should support the Government, but he was astounded at the reason he gave. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill would be a great disappointment, but that this clause would be the greatest disappointment of all. They were sometimes taunted with seeking to make political capital out of the defects of the Allotments Act, but they were justified in claiming that the great Liberal Party had done its best to improve those Acts. The present system was both costly and cumbrous, and it was almost impossible to get land if the owner objected, but the scheme provided in this Bill was simple and would be effective, and he therefore heartily supported it.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON (York, N. R., Thirsk)

said, that hon. Members opposed to the Government maintained that the Amendment under discussion would make it easier to get allotments than would be possible under the scheme of the President of the Local Government Board. The hon. Member who last spoke had suggested it was their duty to listen to the voices of complaint from outside, but surely that was not their whole duty. He doubted very much if the Committee really understood the point upon which it was about to divide. No doubt the process laid down by the 176th Clause of the Public Health Act 1875 was a clumsy and troublesome one, but the proceedings under the Allotments Act of 1887 which the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool wished to be incorporated in this Bill was much more simple, although some hon. Members seemed to think it was not sufficiently simple. The hitch really consisted in the intervention of the District Council, and Parliament had already recognised that that was where the trouble came in. The Secretary to the Local Government Board had complained that no progress had been made. But how in the world could they expect to make progress of a system which had been in force only two years if at the end of that period they tore it up by the roots in order to see how it was growing? The Amendment of his hon. Friend would dispense with the interference of the District Council, and would enable the Parish Council to apply direct to the County Council, which would hold the inquiry and make the Provisional Order which Parliament would be asked to confirm. The Government proposal, on the other hand, was that the Parish Council should petition the District Council, and that the inquiry should be held by the Local Government Board, and it was between those two plans the Committee had to decide. There was this difference between the Government proposal and the Amendment of his hon. Friend: The Amendment only admitted of one inquiry by the County Council on the spot, responsible to the very people who were making the application. This inquiry could be conducted for little or no expense. The Government proposal was for an inquiry by a Local Government Inspector besides the inquiry by the District Council, and the Local Government Inspectors were to be paid at the rate of three guineas per day. The clause, again, brought in the Rural Sanitary Authority as it stood at present. But the next nine Amendments on the Paper—all by supporters of the Government—sought to get rid of the District Council which the Government proposed to bring in in this matter. The District Councils were still in the air, and so they were to deal with the Rural Sanitary Authority. But did anyone suggest that the Rural Sanitary Authority was the Radical beau idéal of what ought to be the authority to decide in the matter of allotments? They were raising up a hierarchy of authorities that would contain different sorts of men. The Parish Council, being within walking distance, would contain a majority of labourers; the District Council, being within driving distance, would contain a majority of farmers; and the County Council, being within training distance, would contain a majority of landlords. Those who understood the allotments question would know that the difficulty was not with the landowner so much as with the tenant, and yet the Government were proposing to bring in the District Council, composed largely of farmers, and to exclude the County Council, composed very largely of landlords. That was the exact point before the Committee, and he hoped hon. Gentlemen would make sure of the point they were Toting on, and not go against this Amend- ment on the ground that it was opposed to compulsion.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

In the course of this discussion reference has been made by the President of the Local Government Board, and, I believe, by other gentlemen, to the opinions which I have expressed on the general subject; and I should like, if the House would bear with me one or two minutes, to state what my opinion has been and still is with reference to the whole matter. I have thought, Sir, that it would be very desirable that Parliament should clearly define the various purposes for which, in its opinion, the right of compulsory purchase might be given to Local Authorities, and that then, with regard to all these objects and purposes, provision should be made that the compensation for the property taken should be a fair and not an excessive compensation. I have explained again and again the results of my own experience, which, as the House knows, is chiefly confined to our large towns; but I imagine that the result of similar experience in country districts would not be very different. The result of my experience has been in every case in which a Public Authority has for any purposes sanctioned by Parliament to take land that the authority has invariably had to pay at least from 30 to 100 per cent. more than the fair market value. The great case with which I myself was specially concerned was in connection with the purchase of property the total value of which exceeded £1,500,000, which was made by the Corporation of Birmingham in connection with the Artisans Dwellings Act. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that the Artisans Dwellings Act was brought in by a Conservative Government in 1875; and it was the opinion of the Conservative Government that the object was so important that it was necessary to legislate in order to prevent the excessive prices which had, by general consent, been obtained in every case under the Lands Clauses Act; and accordingly special provisions were inserted in the Artisans Dwellings Act to enable Corporations to obtain the land on fair terms. The intention of the Government was undoubtedly excellent; but in spite of all the care which Lord Cross, who was responsible for that Act, took in the matter it remains a fact that, in the case of the purchase to which I refer, and those who are best qualified to judge agree with my whole conclusion, that in Birmingham we paid at least £500,000 more than we should have paid had we been in the position of private buyers and the property had been sold for what would have been considered a fair or full market value. Let me remind the Committee that this provision which obtains in the Lands Clauses Act for obtaining an extra 10 percent., or some similar advantage in the case of compulsory sale, is abrogated in the Artisans Dwellings Act. We were not required by law to pay that extra 10 per cent., but in spite of that, in consequence of the circumstances under which the purchase and sale had to he made, we were still required on behalf of the community to pay this enormous sum in addition to the full and fair value. I could give a number of instances in substantiation of this, but I need now only say that that was the net result. What is the indirect consequence of that? The indirect consequence is that the Artisans Dwellings Act has practically been a dead letter. Although our experience has been, on the whole, satisfactory, still the cost has been so great in. the direction of imposing a permanent charge on the ratepayers of Birmingham that we have not been able to prosecute similar large undertakings to such an extent as we should have liked; and other Corporations have also been discouraged. Now I do hope, and I think I shall carry the whole House with me, that when we have a public object in view, an object that is admitted to be of great public advantage, that we ought to do all in our power, at any rate, to prevent these excessive prices being obtained and a public object thereby from being frustrated. It is unanimously agreed that the provision of allotments is a public object, I do not think of less importance or considered to be even than the Artisans Dwellings Act and the provision of proper dwellings; and therefore in this case, so far as the principle goes, I think we should unanimously agree that any reasonable proposal which could be made with the view of cheapening the cost of transfer and of preventing excessive or unreasonable prices for land taken compulsorily should be inserted in the Bill. I now come to the provisions which are under consideration, and I must say I agree with the last speaker that the observations of the hon. Gentleman who preceded me with reference to the provisions under consideration were not relevant. There is no division of opinion between the two sides of the House on the matter of principle. It is merely a question of the best means of obtaining the result; and I do not think that the hon. Member could have had much experience in these matters, otherwise he would not have said—I do not think the President of the Local Government Board is so sanguine as his supporter—that this Bill is going to make the acquisition by compulsion cheap. That I will undertake to say it will not. But, after all, we cannot expect protection. Let us see whether it will make the acquisition any cheaper; that would be an advantage. So far as regards one of the provisions of the Bill—that there shall be no demand for an extra price for compulsory purchase—I can only say I am heartily with my right hon. Friend, and I really cannot see, nor have I in these Debates either read or heard anything which justifies that provision. I quite understand if you are going to take land from a landowner for some matter of petty convenience that you ought to give him more than a fair price, at least 10 per cent. over a fair price, in order to compensate him for the incidental annoyance in connection with compulsory sale. But having got what is confessed to be a public object of the highest importance, I think he may well dispense with that extra 10 per cent., which, I am sorry to say, becomes, in practice, not 10 per cent., but 20 per cent. and more. I do really think that persons who desire to promote this object should be willing to give up that claim for an extra percentage on account of the compulsory sale. Then I come to another proposal of my right hon. Friend—the proposal that an Order of the Local Government Board should have the force of legislation. I do not believe there will be very many compulsory sales, because I am of opinion, from my own very considerable experience in the matter, that, do what you will, with the greatest goodwill in the world, you will never make compulsory purchase as cheap as volun- tary purchase. If you are dealing with a willing seller you will be able to obtain what is wanted at a much lower price than in the case of an unwilling seller by any means of compulsion you can devise. I admit that the Local Authorities, the Parish Councils, and others, will always be very slow to proceed to compulsion, and that only in extreme cases will they adopt this risky course. Therefore, I do not think there will be a great number of cases in which they will have to come to Parliament, or that the Local Government Board Order will have to be made. Speaking generally, legislation by means of a Provisional Order has been, on the whole, a very great boon, and it has been conducted very economically. It is only in the most exceptional cases, where there is a very bitter contest in Parliament, that the matter becomes expensive. No doubt it is then enormously expensive, both parties having to be represented by counsel, and when eminent counsel have to be paid it runs away with large sums. My right hon. Friend proposes in these cases, which are very exceptional, to do away with that expense by making the Order of the Local Government Board a final Order. I say myself I am not prejudiced; I am not unwilling even to adopt such a proposal as an experiment; but I do want to impress upon the Committee that it is a tremendous experiment. Parliament is for the first time giving up its authority upon a matter of the highest importance, because in principle I cannot see how, if you are going to allow the Local Government Board to make an Order dealing with property in the case of allotments, you can oppose similar proceedings by the Local Government Board or by other Departments in regard to the purchase and sale of other property. It cannot be pretended for a moment that it would be a good provision for allotments, and would not be a good provision for, say, the Artisans Dwellings Act. Therefore, you must be prepared to accept precisely the same system when you are going to deal with property which will be counted not by tens of hundreds, but by millions of pounds. When you are buying property for a waterworks, or, in fact, for any public purpose for which a Local Authority requires property, you are bound, if you accept this proposal of the Government, to admit that the Local Government Board, or some similar Government Office, is competent to deal with the matter finally without reference to the Imperial Parliament. I must say, without pronouncing positively upon it, that I do think that is a most revolutionary legislation. I do not use the expression revolutionary in a bad sense. I mean revolutionary in the sense of establishing a change so enormous that I think it is perfectly unreasonable to expect that it will be passed by this House under the menace of a Saturday Sitting at a time which is altogether inadequate to consider its many results. If you could confine it to this question—exclusively to the purchase of land for allotments—it would be a different matter. It is quite certain these purchases never can be on a very large scale, because the Parish Council with its limited means is never likely to purchase any considerable quantity of land. Therefore, if it were confined solely to this one question, I do not think the matter would be of large importance, and I, for one, should not object to see the experiment tried. But I doubt whether you can make any experiment of this kind without considering this is the first step towards a change of the very greatest magnitude which may have consequences which the Government themselves have not entirely foreseen. I would say a word or two upon the third proposition of the Government. My right hon. Friend will see that I am entirely favourable to one of his proposals; with regard to the second, it is so large that it staggers me a little, and I would venture to say my judgment is in a state of suspension; but with regard to the third proposal, I must frankly say I am entirely hostile. I think this proposal for compulsory hiring is an entire mistake. I think it is tended to divert the labourers from the line of action most in their true interests, and to substitute a course of proceeding which, I believe, will be most embarrassing to all concerned. Let us consider it, in the first place, from the point of view of the landlord. He is to have his control of his property interfered with. The eyes of his land are to be picked out; a small quantity of land is to be taken perhaps from a limited estate, and it will probably not be the worst but the best part of the laud. He is not to be compensated for that with the full value of the land, and thereafter dismiss it altogether from his consideration; but he is to go on with the management of the rest of the property with no certainty that in a short space of time, say seven years, he may not have this land thrown back upon his hands and all his arrangements seriously interfered with. I do think that is an illegitimate interference with the rights of property which I do not see how any fair-minded man can approve. There is one point that it does not appear to me the Government have considered. My right hon. Friend, I think, in dealing with all these questions, has shown a very fair mind. He has avoided any clap-trap in regard to the matter; has admitted the rights of property, and has himself declared, so far as his intention goes, that there is to be no injury to persons who are thus dealt with, and he has endeavoured to protect them in the clause under discussion. But one point he has left, altogether out of view. Surely it will be absolutely necessary, if this clause is to be adopted, to insert the additional condition, that if the lease is abandoned, or when it expires, the property is to be replaced in as good a condition as it was when taken. That is to say, that supposing a farm of pasture was broken up for seven years, surely compensation must be given to the landlord.

THE PRESIDENT OD THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,) Wolverhampton, E.

There is a new clause dealing with this of which I have given notice.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

It is greatly confusing, there are so many Amendments proposed by the Government to their Bill; so that those who have not the Bill at their finger ends—

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The right hon. Gentleman was not here when I explained the course of procedure. What I stated I proposed was to take out from the clause all reference to any power of hiring, and to introduce a new clause dealing with hiring itself. That clause I have put down as a new clause; it will have to be read a second time, and can then be discussed. I do not think my right hon. Friend has seen that clause.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, and I apologise to the Committee for having detained it unnecessarily on that point. I would very shortly conclude by saying this: Of course, the clause when it conies on will require some examination. Having spoken hitherto of the unfairness of the system of hiring to the landlord, I do want to ask the Committee when they come to the matter to consider very carefully what the result of these precautions which my right hon. Friend regards as necessary will be to the labourer? How can you possibly have a cheap hiring if you are to be liable to all these conditions? If in regard to a lease for seven years you are to compensate the landlord for all the damage which may be done, for the damage of severance, and all those other consequences of separating from his estate a small portion and a temporary lease for a short period, if you are to add all these expenses to the rent which is to be charged for the seven years, just think how it will raise the rent; and I confess I am of opinion that the instance given just now by the hon. Gentleman below me, of land of the agricultural value of 15s. let for allotments at £5 per acre, will be altogether exceeded by the necessities of the case. I say, then, with regard to the proposal just now before the Committee, I do not see how I can vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend opposite, because it deals with too much, and it is a little too wholesale for me. If I voted for that I should be voting against one of the proposals of my right hon. Friend which I am prepared to support—namely, the doing away with the 10 per cent. addition for compulsory purchase; but I reserve my right of judgment and of voting to when we come to the other Amendments which are upon the Paper and which will deal with the separate proposals of my right hon. Friend. As regards the Amendment of my hon. Friend opposite, I agree with some of the objects which he has in view; I also differ from him in point of detail, therefore I feel myself unable to vote at all.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) Derby

We who are in favour of this Bill will have heard, on the whole, with satisfaction the speech of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The only fault I have to find with it is that it is a little timid and, of course, little encouragement to go further in the direc- tion of the Bill. First of all, as regards the 10 per cent. for the compulsory purchase, he is entirely in favour of the proposals of the Bill, but he is alarmed at the revolutionary proposal that land should be taken upon the authority of any Public Body whatever.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

No, I beg pardon. Not a Public Body, but a Government Department an Office of the Government.

SIR W. HARCOURT

On the authority of any Department not requiring the sanction of Parliament. I can give the right hon. Gentleman some encouragement and authority I am sure he will value. Immediately after the Act of 1887—the Allotments Act, which we heard from the hon. Member for Bordesley the other night had been so perfect and agreeable that it required little or nothing more, and that anybody who proposed Amendments to that Act must be looking forward to electioneering clauses, by which I suppose he means clauses which are popular with the masses of the people — there were people who found that Act so inefficient and incomplete that they introduced a Bill for the purpose of amending the Act of 1887. They were persons whom, I am sure, my right hon. Friend and Gentlemen opposite will respect. The names on the back of that Bill were Major Rasch, Mr. Collings, Sir E. Birkbeck, Mr. Round, Mr. Storey-Maskelyne, Colonel Gunter, Mr. Fulton, and Lord H. Bentinck. Now, the main object of that Bill was to establish the compulsory hiring of land, and it proposed to repeal the clauses of the Act of 1887 which necessitated an application to Parliament in connection with compulsory taking. I hope that will be some encouragement to my right hon. Friend to entertain the question of compulsory hiring of land. The ninth clause of that Bill was that— Sections 3 and 4 of the Allotments Act are hereby repealed. That is the authority of Parliament to deal with the Provisional Order, and the clause concludes— And every Provisional Order made by a County Authority under that or any other Act shall have the same force and effect as if it had been confirmed by an. Act of Parliament. There is the revolutionary principle proposed by half-a-dozen gentlemen from the opposite side of the House, and figuring among them the right hon. Member for Bordesley, and that is the proposal which so alarmed my right hon. Friend that for fear it should be too revolutionary he likes to suspend his judgment as to whether he should entertain it at all. I hope that he will become less timid than he is at present, and will see his way to support this revolutionary proposal which some seven years ago was made by half-a-dozen of the principal Conservative Members of this House. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members opposite will not deny, at all events, that they are Conservatives. I do not venture to discriminate between the credit of different Members on the other side of the House, but I should have said from my recollection of Sir E. Birkbeck that he was a leading Conservative Member. I should also have said that Major Round belonged to that class, and I should certainly have thought that Mr. Jesse Collings and Mr. Storey-Maskelyne might have encouraged the timidity of my right hon. Friend. That attempt was unsuccessful; the revolutionists of those days did not carry their Bill. But later tactics had been more successful. The truth is, that this terrible proposal which has so frightened the Conservatism of my right hon. Friend has actually passed through the House of Commons during the present Session without a protest. I suppose that the acquisition of sites for Dissenting chapels is not a more important object than the acquisition of allotments for the labourers of this country. This revolutionary proposal which requires such protracted consideration has gone through this House this Session without any serious opposition. The seventh clause of the Leasehold Enfranchisement {Places of Worship) Bill provided that The Local Government Board shall take the memorial into consideration and may either dismiss the same or direct a local inquiry to be held .… and therefore the Board may order accordingly, directing the site or part thereof to be conveyed to two trustees named in the memorial. That revolutionary proposal, giving the Local Government Board power to transfer land without any application to Parliament actually passed this House without a Division. It is quite true that the Bill has been up to "another place" and that the revolutionary proposal accepted here has been rejected there. A similar proposal, however, was passed with respect to the crofters in Scotland in 1886, power being given to the Crofters' Commission, on the application of five or more crofters, to enlarge holdings without any application to Parliament. It is, therefore, a complete misapprehension to suppose that this is a serious innovation which ought not to be entertained except upon long and careful consideration, and I cannot myself pretend to feel the alarm which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) seems half to entertain upon the subject. I quite concur with the hon. Gentleman opposite in thinking that we ought distinctly to understand what we are going to divide upon. This Amendment practically proposes to keep the procedure just as it is. Therefore, apart from the subject of procedure, which is quite distinct, the question now before the Committee is, will you keep the present procedure as regards purchase of land or adopt a new one? At present the application is made to the County Council, which makes a Provisional Order, and the Local Government Board carries that Order through Parliament. An hon. Member opposite said that under the proposed new procedure the Local Government Board will have to make an inquiry through an Inspector. Well, an inquiry has now to be made by the County Council, so that this is not an additional stage. The really important matter is that we dispense with carrying the Provisional Order through Parliament. I spent a good many years of my life at the Parliamentary Bar, and I know something of the cost and the dilatoriness of proceedings before Parliamentary Committees. There was some misunderstanding, and I think some laughter, when some gentlemen on these Benches said that the Local Government Board was more responsible to Parliament than a County Council. What was meant was that if the Local Government Board constantly gave approval to compulsory purchases under unfair conditions Parliament would call them to account through the President of the Board, who is a Member of this House. If the County Council did such a thing nobody could be made accountable here. If the Local Government Board acts wrongly public opinion and Parliamentary opinion can be brought to bear upon them. I do not know whether at this period of the Session the argument may seem so strong, but I may remind the Committee that during a great part of the year Parliament is not sitting, and therefore, if you proceed by means of a Provisional Order you necessarily lose a great many months in many cases. If you have an application ready to deal with in September the Provisional Order could not be brought before Parliament until the month of February, whilst, if no Parliamentary sanction were necessary, a decision might be obtained in October. Now, let us come to an understanding on the question of compulsion. Do not suppose that we on this side of the House love compulsion for compulsion's sake. I know that there is an impression that that is so. [Opposition cheers.] I assure hon. Members who cheer that they are mistaken. I am perfectly willing to admit that a great deal has been done voluntarily under the existing Allotments Act. But why? The reason is that you have a more or less effectual compulsion in the background. The Agricultural Tenants Compensation Bill was introduced without any provision as to compulsion. It was found that the measure would not work without compulsion, and compulsion was introduced, whereupon the voluntary provisions were found to work. Compulsion was inserted in the Allotments Act, and everyone knows that the voluntary arrangements that have taken place have been to a large degree owing to it. If there is a universal disposition to do these things, why were they not done before compulsion was enacted? We do not believe that if there is an effectual power of compulsion it will be universally or even generally used. We are of opinion that when it is known that the thing is inevitable there will be a much more real desire to arrive at amicable arrangements. I will not enter into the question of compulsory hiring, although I may say that I have always attached immense importance to the power of hiring. I believe it will be a most valuable part of the whole of the allotment system, because it does not involve a large capital expenditure on the part of the locality, but secures the enjoyment of the land to the labourers by a cheap and speedy process. I am glad to think that these powers are to be put in force on the immediate application of the Parish Council, and I attach immense importance to the fact that these provisions will not merely facilitate the supply of land, but will increase the demand on the part of the rural population. When they know that powers exist at their own door for acquiring land they will become more alive to and more anxious to exercise them than when they know the powers reside in some distant body with which they are less acquainted. I am not alarmed at being told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) that this is the electioneering clause of the Bill. I do not know whether that is meant as a reproach. I suppose that in the Party government of this country, in which I am a firm believer, as I think it is the only system on which Parliamentary government can be well conducted, the two Parties compete in laying before the country that which they believe to be for the general advantage, and that which will secure the general support. I believe that this is probably the part of the Bill which is of the greatest importance and in which the greatest interest is taken by the class for whose benefit it is intended. If that be so, surely it is desirable that we should come to a definite issue and a final decision as to what is the best method of satisfying the demand which we believe to exist, and which we believe to be a wholesome demand that ought to be encouraged. I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley that, in the opinion of the class in whose interest the proposal is brought forward, this is the part of the Bill that is most important, and I confidently submit to the Committee that it is desirable to afford them a cheaper, a more efficient, and a more convenient method of reaching that object than has hitherto been supplied by the Allotments Acts. I do not condemn those Acts; I think they have done great good. It is, however, six years since the Allotments Act of 1887 was passed, and, having seen the working of that measure and ascertained its deficiencies, we now submit our present plan to the Committee. The question on which we are going to divide is whether we shall adhere as regards the purchase of land to the existing system, or whether we shall avail ourselves of the opportunity which is afforded by this Bill of improving on that system and making it more and more favourable to the labouring classes.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)

I always listen to the right hon. Gentleman with pleasure, but I am often not a little puzzled to understand the precise object of the remarks he addresses to the House. Early in the evening we were led to understand by the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who has spent many weary nights in charge of the Bill when the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) has been absent, that the first object of Her Majesty's Government was to pass Clauses 9 and 10 of this Bill this evening, and that they attached so much importance to that object that if those clauses were not passed this evening we were likely to be visited with the pains and penalties of a Sitting to-morrow. I think that the object of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in the remarks he has addressed to the House, must be to ensure that there shall be a Saturday Sitting. In the course of his speech he has made allusions to matters which certainly, if they were fairly dealt with by hon. Members on this side of the House, would require long Debate, and further, he has dragged into the discussion a matter which was most carefully excluded from it by the President of the Local Government Board. Before the right hon. Gentleman addressed the House the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had inadvertently alluded to the question of compulsory hiring. He was not aware that the President of the Local Government Board proposed to exclude hiring from this clause, had given notice of a new clause in which the subject might be properly considered, and had begged the Committee not to discuss it at the present time. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham, having alluded to it in a few sentences, the Chancellor of the Exchequer immediately jumps up, makes a detailed attack on the right hon. Gentleman, accusing him practically of inconsistency in the matter because the right hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) and some Members on this side of the House had put their names on the back of a Bill proposing compulsory hiring, which I believe never attained the honours of a Second Reading. Anything more provocative in the way of suggestions to the Opposition to increase the length of our Debates I never remember in this House. I can only express a sincere hope that we may be sufficiently self-denying not to take advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me? I believe I did allude to the question of hiring. I knew it was not germane to this Amendment, but I referred to it principally with reference to the proposal to dispense with the application to Parliament.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

Well, I really want to facilitate the progress of business, and I will not say a single word more on the present occasion about compulsory hiring. What I understand to be the real question before the Committee now is whether there should be, as is now required in the case of compulsory purchase, the sanction of Parliament. Speaking for myself on this point, I must say that I am disposed to admit that the present procedure is tedious and expensive, and that there is a reason for some changes and reforms in it that might make it less expensive and more rapid. I have always thought that if the Local Government Board had devoted their attention to some reforms of that kind, such, for instance, as relieving the locality of any expense in connection with a Provisional Order which they approved, they would have met any real grievance which existed. But what is proposed now is that when the Local Government Board has made an Order for compulsory purchase, the matter shall be removed altogether from the sanction of Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that if the Local Government Board sanction purchase unfairly, and do not do their duty equitably to all persons concerned, they can be challenged in Parliament and censured. Nothing can be more absurd than such a contention as that. What would be the use of an individual landowner—probably a small one, because small owners are in infinitely greater danger than large ones—having the power to write to his county Member complaining of the action of the Local Government Board with regard to his property as tyrannical and unjust, when under our rule here it would be impossible for a county Representative to challenge effectively the action of the Board? Could he propose a Vote of Censure on the Government for the action of the President of the Local Government Board in such a matter? Why, it would be absurd. Could he challenge the salary of the President of the Local Government Board on the Estimates? The Estimates came on in September. There is no procedure provided by which any action, however unjust, on the part of the Local Government Board can be properly challenged in this House. I grant there might be a way, if the Government would adopt it. of getting over this objection, and that would be by placing in the Bill some provision by which it should be made compulsory on the Local Government Board to lay these Orders before Parliament, and let them lie on the Table for 40 days, in order that there might be reasonable opportunity of calling attention to them, and taking the vote of the House upon them. But there is no such proposal on the part of the Government, and there has been no hint that any such proposal would be accepted. I think if they were prepared to carry out the view that there should be a real supervision on the part of Parliament they would accept some such proposition. As it is, I am obliged to take the proposal in the Bill, and to conclude that there will be no chance whatever of challenging the action of the Local Government Board if it be unfair. I entirely dispute the analogy the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attempted to draw between the procedure proposed in this Bill and the procedure sanctioned by the House with reference to the sites of Nonconformist chapels. The Bill on that subject, to the best of my recollection, slipped through the House in the small hours of the morning; but, in any case, it only applied to a very small number of cases as compared to this proposal, which places very considerable powers for the acquisition of land or buildings in the hands of any rural Council throughout the country. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman's example in making half-an-hour's speech on matters which do not come under this clause, but I trust the Committee will accept the Amendment.

MR. STEPHENS (Middlesex, Hornsey)

said, he had on the Paper several Amendments, which he did not propose to move, having precisely the same object in view as that now before the Committee. He cordially agreed to the proposal of the Bill, as far as it gave power to the inhabitants of parishes to move for themselves in the matter of allotments. The failure of the 1887 Act was really attributable to the fact that the powers given by it to the District Authority had not been given directly to the parishes. The members of any Rural Sanitary Authority were always interested in their own parishes, and in them alone. The present proposal would give life and force and personal interest to the machinery of the Bill, which was wanting in the Bill as it stood. The Bill itself was, he thought, an admirable piece of machinery, and if the people of the parish could not agree the machinery suggested by the Amendment would work well. It was in reality much less cumbrous than the machinery of the Bill, which would not only cause greater delay but lead to greater cost than the machinery of the Act of 1887, which it was proposed to incorporate. Under the Bill there would be two inquiries—the rural district inquiry and the Local Government inquiry, and both those inquiries would have to be extremely careful and full. The District Authority would hardly approach the Local Government Board without having first carefully considered the claim of the parish, and the Local Government Board would hardly give a decision which was to be without appeal without full investigation. Of course, it would be present to the mind of the Inspector that there was added weight and responsibility placed on his shoulders, for he would have to make such inquiry as would develop all the merits of the case, in order to present them to the Local Government Board. There could be no pressure, and he must always err on the side of admitting any evidence which could be said to have a shadow of a claim to present itself, because unlike the case of the Local Government inquiry as it at present stood there would be no opportunity of redress. Under the Amendment there would be a single inquiry — that of the County Council. It would be a jury of the county—probably a standing committee of the County Council. An inquiry by those who were neighbours in the county, who had an actual, living, knowledge of the circumstances of the case, must be: much more satisfying than one carried on by an Inspector, foreign to the place, sent down from a Government Department. The President of the Local Government Board had said last night that there were no complaints of the Inspectors. Well, he had had experience of a good many Local Government inquiries, and in contradiction of the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman, without being invidious by mentioning names, he was bound to say that complaints were very general indeed in regard to their proceedings. Anything more unsatisfactory in the way of a judicial inquiry could not well be imagined. The Inspector sat, and the evidence was put before him, and at the end of the inquiry he folded up his papers and said—"Well, gentlemen, I will make my Report to the Local Government Board, and, no doubt, in a fortnight or three weeks you will have got their decision." And when the decision came it was unaccompanied by any reasons. His experience, in fact, was that it was always impossible to extract reasons front a Government Department. [Sir W. HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] Yes; but compare that, in point of satisfaction, with the process in a Court of Law. A Judge was a person, at any rate, almost as important as an Inspector of the Local Government Board, but after he had heard all the evidence and examined the witnesses he did not think it beneath his dignity to give the reasons which had influenced his mind in arriving at a judgment.

SIR W. HARCOURT

A Committee of the House of Commons gives no reasons.

MR. STEPHENS

said, that in the case of Committees the questions were argued before them and could afterwards be argued in the House. Those who had had experience of Local Government inquiries felt that they were not satisfactory, the reason being that there was nothing open about them, it being possible to give a decision arbitrarily and without the why and wherefore. The Inspectors as a rule were either medical men, engineers or military officers. They could not be regarded as experts, and though they could not be presumed to have judicial and personal qualities superior to the Judges of the Courts they had practical power superior to that of any Judge in the land, and by the arrangement in the Bill they would be raised to the level of the High Court of Parliament itself.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the hon. Gentleman misunderstood the position of the Inspector of the Local Government Board. He was no judicial officer whatever. The responsibility for every decision rested with the President of the Local Government Board. All the Inspector did was to take the evidence and make his Report, which was most carefully considered and decided upon by the head of the Department. After an experience of 18 months he was able to say that he had had no complaint made of the conduct of any Inspector.

MR. STEPHENS

said, he was well aware that the Inspector reported to the Local Government Board, but it was a difficult thing to write a Report which would do justice to all the points of a case, and it was a difficult thing to collect sufficient of the merits of a case from a Report to give a satisfactory decision. If the Judges of the country had to give their judgments from written Reports he was afraid that the result would be frequent miscarriages of justice.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The Inspector produces the whole of the evidence.

MR. STEPHENS

But, the right hon. Gentleman could only read a digest of it. The President of the Local Government Board was only human, and it was impossible for him to wade through all these Reports without a great deal of assistance, which meant the importation of other minds into the decisions. The Secretary to the Local Government Board last night said the security they would have for right decisions would be the raising of Debates on the Estimates; but the absurdity of that must be manifest at once. It was impossible to obtain sufficient facilities for Debates on the Estimates for the redress of existing grievances; what then would be likely to occur in regard to the grievances which would arise in connection with the action of the Inspectors in dealing with 12,000 parishes? It was hoped that all the parishes would put in force the powers relating to allotments, and if that were done there would be endless cases brought before the Local Government Board, endless Reports required from Local Government Board Inspectors, and endless complaints of the unchecked action of those officials. Against these dangers he most strongly protested.

MR. WINGF1ELD-DIGBY (Dorset, N.)

said, he should not have taken part in the Debate but for the speech of the Secretary to the Local Government Board, who did not confine himself to vague assertions, but brought forward individual cases, where the labourers had found it impossible to obtain allotments. He had referred to the case of Haselbury Bryant in Dorsetshire—a case which occurred in his (Mr. Wingfield-Digby's) constituency, and with which he was quite familiar. The facts of that case were that the labourers, or a small political section of them, placed themselves under the guidance of a political solicitor, and asked for a piece of land for allotments. They fixed their eyes on a particular piece of land, and would have that and no other. He (Mr. Wing-field-Digby) was speaking as the owner of a farm in that particular parish. Well, he went to the expense of getting a tenant to give up a field, and laid that field out for allotments for the labourers. But they preferred to have the land they had in view, which was a piece belonging to a charity for the benefit of the poor of the parish, and let out as permanent pasture at £5 an acre. The solicitor succeeded in obtaining the land, which had been a permanent pasture for some centuries, and it was ploughed up, so that the charity was robbed to that extent. This was done simply because a small political clique determined to put in force an Act passed in 1882 for providing allotments out of charity lands. Other cases had come under his notice, but he confined himself to saying that that which had been quoted from Dorsetshire was not a case which proved that it was impossible to obtain allotments. The resistance offered to the labourers in this case was that of the trustees of the charity, who did not wish to see the permanent pasture broken up and the land deteriorated, seeing that it existed for the good of the poor of the parish. Vague assertions had been made that the Opposition were not friendly to allotments. He did not believe that was the case at all. He was reluctant to mention his own case, but he might say that during the four years he had been in possession of his property he had increased by several hundreds in the differ- ent counties the number of allotment tenants. From his knowledge of other landlords he believed they were perfectly ready and willing to meet the reasonable wishes, not of a political clique but of the labourers generally, by setting land apart for them and charging only a fair rent. He would support the Amendment, because he thought that in the interests of the labourers it would be well that the County Council should be the court of appeal. He said that, because he had done what hon. Gentlemen opposite perhaps had not done. He had sat on the committee of a County Council to consider an appeal for allotments in a parish where the owners—a number of small owners—had refused to give up laud. The result of the inquiry of the County Council was pressure brought to bear upon the owners, which was successful without taking a farthing out of the pockets of the labourers. Members of the County Council held an inquiry and spent many hours in the district, giving their services free, the result being entirely satisfactory. As he wished to save the labourers expensive proceedings he should support the Amendment for making the County Council the court of appeal.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had failed to notice that in London since 1817 the Local Authorities had had power to take property for widening and lengthening the streets without coming to Parliament at all. That power had been availed of in the City about one thousand times, and they had spent about £4,000,000 in that way. The Act had been put in force all over London and had always been successful. The law had been in force for 75 years, and there had never been any complaint against the operation of the Act. He admitted with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that all compulsory purchase was expensive, which was the fault of the lawyers and not of the Act. But experience showed that the existence of compulsory powers led to settlement without a resort to them. The same powers had been exercised by the other Local Authorities in the Metropolis without an appeal to anybody, except that if money had to be borrowed for the improvements the consent of the London County Council had to be ob- tained, not to the improvement, but for the loan. The system proposed in the Bill was complex. He was sorry he Government had not had sufficient confidence in the Parish Councils to allow them to do what the London authorities had done with such great success for 75 years. His opinion was that the right way to exercise control over these Local Bodies was to limit the amount of the rate they could levy. The rate in the City of London was limited to 1s. 6d. in the £1.

MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)

said, he had taken a great deal of interest in the allotments question, and had introduced a drastic Allotments Bill himself. With regard to the compulsory proposal of the Bill, he could not congratulate the Government on the way they had gone about assisting the agricultural interests. They did not consider that the whole population of the country was composed of squires and parsons whom it was possible to expropriate and rob without anybody saying anything about it. There were also small freeholders, who had no idea of parting with their land compulsorily, and they were the people who would make their voices heard at the next General Election. It would not be the fault of the Opposition if they did not. As to the question of the compulsory hiring of land for allotments, he was not sure that the Government were wrong. He recognised that what the agricultural labourer wanted was agricultural land not far removed from his own cottage. And that to a large extent, owing to the Bill of the late Minister for Agriculture, he had got. In some cases, however, he could not get it, not because of the moral obliquity of the squire and parson, but because the method of acquiring land compulsorily was cumbrous and expensive. Although hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had spoken warmly against the Government proposals, he was bound to say that there was a good deal in them, and that they would not do much harm. Having regard to the line he had always taken in regard to allotments, he should not be doing himself justice or acting in a straightforward manner if he did not say this.

MR. ARCH (Norfolk, N. W.)

said, he agreed, as did the large majority of agricultural labourers in this country, with the compulsory hiring of land, and he thought the hon. Member who had just sat down (Major Rasch) must be aware that if compulsory hiring was necessary at all it was necessary in the County of Essex. He happened to be in the county about a fortnight ago, and in one parish he found 37 stalwart men having wives and children to support out of employment. They had no land of their own, and they were denied the cultivation of other people's land. He saw a landlord and asked him to do something towards putting the men on a field which really did want their labour. At the present day land all over England was being starved for want of labour, and yet on the other side of the hedge labourers were allowed to starve for want of employment. The landlord replied, "They can have the land if they want it, Mr. Arch," and he was pleased to hear it. A little later he wrote to know how the men had succeeded in their endeavour, and then he found that the labourers had been told they could have the land at £5 rental. As a labourer himself, his experience was that for 12 years he applied for a bare half rood of God's earth to cultivate for the support of his family, and for 12 years he was denied it. When he happened to be fortunate enough, and happened to be thought sufficiently well-behaved to have it, what were the terms? Farmers paid 25s. an acre, but he paid £3 8s. 6d. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) on the previous night entered his protest against the middleman, and by the middlemen he had been compelled to pay this much. The Earl of Warwick had let the land to the Churchwardens of the parish for £2 an acre, and they, to show their generous and thoughtful kindness towards the labourers, made the latter pay 28s. 6d. more than they paid the owners. That was the middleman agency. He was quite at one with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) in the desire to remove the middleman out of these transactions. The House was called upon to do something to assuage the terrible poverty in rural districts. Recently there had been a terrible struggle in the mining industry, and, comparatively short as it was, the country was almost driven to desperation; but go where they would, and when they would, and they would find labourers in rural villages vegetating upon 10s. or 12s. weekly. They had this, or the alternative of starvation. Release them from the grindstone of poverty, give them a fair field to labour in, and no favour. They did not want to rob landlords. What they had done, were doing, and would do, added increased value to the land to an enormous extent. For three years he sat on the Warwick County Council. Representations were made to the Council, but they could take no action. So complex and cumbrous were the arrangements that the men said, "If we are to be thrust upon an expensive source of litigation we would rather do without the land altogether." It happened there were 27 acres of land in a village where he lived, and it had been so farmed that it was of little worth. He saw the steward of the Earl of Warwick, and negotiated with him for labourers to take these 27 acres. He asked whence would come the capital for working the land, and was told from the strong arm of an industrious population. Consent was given to the men to have the land, and £3 an acre was demanded, and a condition of repayment was sought and imposed. To this he objected. It seemed to indicate a suspicion that the labourers were dishonest. Said he to the steward, "If I agree to do a month's work for you I may ask you for a week's payment in advance." "But you will not get it," was the answer. But why should distrust be allowed on one side and not on the other? Well, the 27 acres were obtained, and last autumn he walked over the land with a man who well understands the value of land—a subject upon which he (Mr. Arch) was not without some slight knowledge—and he was prepared to say that, whereas this land, when it was let, would not have sold in the market for more than £20 an acre, it would now fetch £30, because of the labour bestowed upon if. He hoped the Committee would not set up their backs at this compulsory hiring. Something must be done. Labourers were not going to sit quietly winter by winter, year by year, while the laud starved for want of cultivation, and their families for want of employment. The movement contained and gathered force in favour of nationalisation of land, but this demand of the labourers was immediate. He had no belief in coddling the labourers. He was sorry that when the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool spoke of two fields thrown back on his hands he did not say how far was the land from the labourers' houses, or what were the rents. His own experience was that a labourer was too often forced to take land at the very end of the parish—the worst land, for which he was asked double the rent paid by the farmer. He hoped the Government would not give way on this question of compulsory hiring, and he was certain that if they did not they would give the highest satisfaction to the most deserving class of men in the country.

MR. CORNWALLIS (Maidstone)

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down had agreed that if the labourers obtained allotments they would increase the value of the land committed to their care. That, however, was an argument in favour not of compulsory hiring, but of compulsory purchase, because if the value of the land were increased, the Local Authority, if it were the owner, would benefit by the enhanced value. He had a strong objection to anything in the nature of compulsory hiring. When the late Government brought in their Small Holdings Bill, he and others earnestly appealed to them not to give the Local Authority the right to hire and lease land, and as a result of that appeal the power to hire and lease land was confined to property of enormous value just outside towns. The objection to compulsory hiring, which was brought into this Bill under the great fallacy that the Act of 1887 had not done the work it was intended to do, was that it would create such uncertainty in the tenure of land that landlords with the best intentions would hesitate to spend money on improving their land. Everybody who knew anything about agricultural matters was aware of the great expense which the erection of farm buildings imposed upon landowners. If a Local Authority took away half a piece of land by means of compulsory hiring, it removed the necessity of having as large farm buildings as would be needed if the land were not so divided. If half a piece of land were taken away by means of compulsory purchase the owner would know that the buildings would not be wanted in future, but if compulsory hiring were adopted he would not know whether he would want the buildings or not. The great uncertainty which would attach to the tenure of land under this Bill, and the consequent discouragement to landowners to spend money on improvements, were in his opinion quite sufficient objections to the proposal to adopt compulsory hiring.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

wished to say a few words on this question, not from the landowners' but from the labourers' point of view. He agreed very much with what had been said by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Arch) in disparagement of the middlemen, being certain that the men who stood between the landowners and the labourers would be the cause of great grievance to the latter. The question the Committee bad to consider was whether compulsory hiring for seven years would make allotments easier and cheaper to get. He answered that question in the negative. At present six labourers could put the Allotments Act in force, but under this Bill it would need a majority of the Parish Council to put it in force. Under those circumstances, the Government were taking away part of the power now possessed by labourers. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: No.] The Parish Council had to take the land, and was to be the working intermediary, and if that body put difficulties in the way of the labourers there would not be much chance of getting allotments. The secret of the great success of the Allotments Act of the late Government was that it had hardly ever been put in force, allotments having sprung up without the use of compulsory power. Compulsory hiring would, he thought, have an exactly opposite effect to compulsory purchase. It would be a much less serious thing for a Parish Council to hire land than to obtain a loan for the purchase of land, and he therefore thought they were more likely to put in force compulsory hiring than compulsory purchase. There was a great number of landowners, he believed, who would be quite anxious to grant allotments voluntarily if they knew that in the event of their not doing so their land would be bought; but he believed a great many would say—"I would prefer that you should hire the land for seven years." The consequence would pro- bably be that instead of having voluntary allotments the middleman would be induced to come in. There was only a limited portion of the land of a parish which was suitable for allotments. Allotment land must have a road frontage, must be flat, must be drained, must be well ventilated, and must be good land. Suppose that 10 acres of suitable laud could be hired at £2 an acre, the cost would altogether amount, with rates and agency fees, to £25. If the laud were divided into 40 quarter acre portions, each tenant would pay something like 12s. a year, and about 6s. 3d. would have to be collected half yearly from 40 tenants. Thus 80 domiciliary visits would have to be paid a year for the collection of the rents. The nominal landlords would be the parish, represented by the Parish Council, but the real landlord would be the Clerk of the Council. He would not be able to make any remission or to give any time, and he would therefore be unpopular. Corporations were always bad landlords, as they must always act by rule. If a bad season came, and an abatement were granted, the difference would have to be made up out of the pockets of the whole of the ratepayers, and the result would be that the allottees would become paupers, inasmuch as their rents would be paid by their fellow ratepayers. The labourers would, therefore, be at once degraded and demoralised, and great injustice would be done to the small freeholder and the small farmer. In case the land was given up by the allottees the Parish Council would be liable for the rent for the remainder of the seven years. Land could be exhausted in three years by growing potatoes upon it without putting in any manure, and also by using over-stimulating manure. Stringent regulations would have, therefore, to be enforced in order to maintain the fertility of the land. It seemed to him that compulsory hiring opened up a vista of actions for breach of contract by the owner against the Council, and by the Council against the allottees, together with notices to quit and crossactions. All such difficulties would be avoided if the voluntary system were allowed to have full play. He was certain that in supporting this Amendment he was supporting the interests of the labourers.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

said, the Debate had shown clearly that the Bill would greatly facilitate the granting of allotments. He knew that they were greatly wanted everywhere, and he wished to point out that the Government were leaving Ireland in a disgraceful state with regard to allotments. Why did they not put in some clauses so as to enable labourers in Ireland to get four acres of land cheaply?

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 189; Noes 117.—(Division List, No. 349.)

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

said, he now had to propose an Amendment, the effect of which would be to make the County Council the authorising authority in these matters; he wished, in fact, to substitute the County Council for the District Council. He and his friends believed that such a substitution would greatly improve the Bill. In the first place, there was no special advantage to be gained by allowing the District Authority to move in the matter, because that Council administered the affairs of a large area, and was not in immediate and close touch with the people of one parish.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I should like to know exactly where we are. The last Amendment we divided upon began with the words "petition the County Council." I understand the hon. and gallant Member desires to leave this matter to the County Council, and I venture to submit that that is precisely the question on which we last divided. We have negatived the words "petition the County Council," and I ask, as a matter of Order, are we to reconsider this matter and have the whole Debate over again?

MR. W. LONG

said, he ventured to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. The question upon which they divided was whether the procedure should be as proposed by the Government, or that laid down by the Allotments Act. This Amendment was totally different. It accepted the plan of the Government, and simply sought to substitute the County Council for the District Council as the intermediate authority.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the Amendment is on order.

COMMANDER BETHELL,

continuing his speech, said, the District Council would have no special knowledge of the wants of and the conditions existing in a given parish, and therefore it would have to send someone to make a local inquiry. The County Council would act in precisely the same way, and it would be the' simpler plan to at once charge the County Council with the duty. But he had a still stronger reason than the absence of special knowledge on the part of the District Council. The Parish Council was to have power to appeal from the decision of the District Council to the County Council, and consequently if the Parish Council were not satisfied with the decision of the District Council on the petition for allotments, it would at once appeal to the County Council. Was such a provision as that likely to work smoothly, especially in its effect on the District Council? Would it not lead the District Council to say — "This is a disagreeable job, let us sit tight and hand it over to the County Council?" It was almost certain that that course would be adopted. It was casting an unfair duty to make the District Council hold an inquiry with the knowledge that its decision would be appealed against, and it would be far better statesmanship to give the Parish Council the power to apply directly to the higher authority— the County Council.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, line 16, to leave out the word "district," and insert the word "county."— (Commander Bethell.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

For the very reasons advanced by my hon. Friend, I cannot accept the Amendment. He says the District Council is not in touch with the parish and that the County Council is. I think, on the contrary, that the District Council will, as the Sanitary Authority, be much more likely to be acquainted with the wants and requirements of a particular parish than the County Council meeting in the county town. But that is a question on which we will agree to differ. The whole basis of the Allotments Act is the representation to the Sanitary Authority and not to the County Council. The Sanitary Authority and the District Council are equivalent terms, if the District Councils part of the Bill is thrown out the Sanitary Authority will remain. The last Debate, which extended over so many hours, practically resulted in the decision that the County Council should cease to have any authority in the matter, and that the application should go direct from the District Council to the Local Government Board. I do not propose to discuss that matter over again. The only question before the Committee is whether the first inquiring body should be the District Council or the County Council, and the Government entertains a strong opinion that the District Council is the proper authority.

MR. W. LONG

said, the right hon. Gentleman had based his argument on the fact that the Allotments Act of 1887 put these duties upon the Sanitary Authority, but he would probably remember that the reason why that authority was selected instead of the Court of Quarter Sessions was that it was the only Elective Authority existing at that period. In the Debates which occurred at the time it was frequently indicated that had the County Council been in existence the power would have been placed in its hands. This question was one of more importance than hon. Members perhaps realised. It had been argued that the County Council would be more in possession of the requirements of a parish than the District Council. The President of the Local Government Board did not assent to that proposition. He did not think that that was a matter on which they need lay very much stress, because to whichever body was intrusted the authority the work of inquiry would be carried out by a sub-committee, and he would point out that the County Councils possessed this advantage—that upon them were to be found a considerable number of men who belonged to the leisured classes who gladly devoted themselves to the work, and were willing to go about the country at their own expense. Many of them were already serving on Allotment Committees, and had conducted these inquiries in a thoroughly impartial manner. On the ground of economy and effective administration he thought it much better that the duty of inquiry should be placed in the hands of the County Council, and he was rather surprised that the Government had not seen their way to accept the Amendment. If it were pressed to a Division he certainly would feel it his duty to vote for it.

SIR W. HARCOURT

The question is whether the County Council or the District Council shall hold these inquiries. Surely the District Council will be more representative of the parish than the District Council, as many of its members will live in the parish or the immediate neighbourhood. Again, if the work is left to the Allotments Committee of the County Council much delay must result, whereas the District Council will meet much more often, it will be better acquainted with the parish, and it will be able to transact the business more quickly. For these reasons we prefer the County Council to the District Council. I hope the Committee will come to a decision at once.

SIR R. PAGET

said, he could suggest several reasons why, in their estimation, the County Council was the proper body to hold these inquiries. In the first place, while they would have but one County Council there would in some counties be 22 District Councils, each one of which might deal with these Petitions on a different basis. Was it not more sensible that all these matters should be dealt with by one body instead of by many, especially as the one body was already accustomed to holding inquiries of this nature? Again, it would be cheaper for the County Council to do the work, because as the Parish Council would have the right to appeal against the District Council's decision, the latter body would seek to avoid its responsibility, and the difficulties of procedure would in consequence be multiplied instead of simplified.

MR. FREEMAN-MITFORD

said, he differed from hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House who had spoken on this matter. He thought the District Council was the body to which the appeal should be made, for two reasons—first of all, because the District Council must be better acquainted with the wants of the district; and, secondly, because it would meet more frequently than the County Council, which met only four times a year, and which would, therefore, involve three months' delay in a matter that might be very urgent.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

I desire merely to say that I prefer the County Council to the District Council; but I do not think the point of very great importance.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR R. PAGET

moved to omit from the clause the sub-section— (a) The Local Government Board shall be substituted for the County Council, and the order, if made by the Board, shall not require confirmation by Parliament. This sub-section had been defended by the President of the Local Government Board on the ground that the present system of Parliamentary Provisional Orders was dilatory, expensive, unsatisfactory, and—taken in connection with the next sub-section of the clause—was conducive to robbery.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I would appeal to you, Sir, as to whether the Motion of the hon. Baronet is in Order. The question raised by this Amendment has already been debated for several hours. The hon. Baronet recognises that, for he is proceeding to reply to a speech I made on the question. Technically, he may be within his right, but there was an honourable understanding that the question should be settled by the last Debate, and should not be fought over again.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Baronet is technically right, but I cannot but feel that this question has been discussed on the previous Amendment.

SIR R. PAGET

said, he only wished to exercise his right as an independent Member. There had been a sort of Second Reading Debate on the clause, but that did not mean that the Committee as a natural consequence were to agree to all the proposals in the clause. His chief ground for moving the omission of the sub-section was that it was an indirect attack upon the Provisional Order system. That system might be good or it might be bad, but it underlay a vast amount of our legislation, and had existed for 50 years, and if it were to be dealt with at all it should be made the subject of separate legislation. He could not conceive it possible for the Government to let the matter rest after they had condemned the Provisional Order system root and branch. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: Hear, hear!] The "hear, hear!" of the right hon. Gentleman showed that the stringent and severe words of condemnation which he had used against the system did not apply alone to Provisional Orders for the purposes of the Bill, but to all purposes. As to the merits of the question, he had to say that it was a gross departure from the existing practice to allow any property to be entirely disposed of by a public Department on the ipse dixit of an Inspector. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to be disposed to limit the sub-section in some way in order to give Parliament some kind of control in the matter. It was too much to invite Parliament to surrender the whole of its control. What he would suggest was that a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be given, or that the Report should lay on the Table of the House for some days before action was taken on it. He begged to move the omission of the sub-section.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 29, to leave out section (a).—(Sir R. Paget.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'The Local Government Board shall be substituted for the County Council,' stand part of the Clause."

MR. E. STANHOPE

I do not want to prolong discussion, but I hope my hon. Friend will divide on this Amendment, as it involves a matter of principle.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do not intend to discuss the Amendment. I submit that if ever there was a clear decision taken upon any question it was taken in the last Division on the question that the present system of Provisional Orders in this matter should cease, and that in lieu thereof should be substituted the Order of the Local Government Board. All the difficulties which the hon. Baronet has urged with great force were urged with equal force by others in the last Debate, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and a clear de- cision was taken on the question. The Government cannot, therefore, take further part in the discussion of this Amendment.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he was quite unaware of any understanding that the decision on this sub-section should be taken at once. He did not understand his right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham to lay it down that the last Division settled this question. On the contrary, his right hon. Friend pointed out that different considerations arose under all these sub-sections, and that they could not be decided all at once. Therefore, those who did not take part in the last discussion might be allowed to say a word on this most important sub-section. He thought the sub-section involved one of the most important principles that the Bill could establish—namely, that in future Parliament was to have no say on the question of taking land, and that in its place a system of bureaucracy was to be set up, under which Inspectors were to be sent all over the country to say how much land was to be taken, the time for which it was to be taken, and the price to be paid for it. The result of the inquiry held by the Inspector would net even be the finding of a judicial tribunal, for the Inspector did not give judgment after the inquiry, but simply stated that he would report to the Local Government Board. The result would, therefore, simply be the decision of a political Department; and that the decision of a political Department should take the place of a decision of the two Houses of Parliament seemed most unsatisfactory from every point of view. The Government might have suggested some alternative plan, such as that a judicial tribunal should be substituted for the Houses of Parliament. Under the Allotments Act of 1890 the County Council was super-added by general consent, and had acted with general satisfaction. Was that Act to be repealed or not?

SIR W. HARCOURT

I should like to know what we are now engaged in doing. I wish to ascertain what was the point that was decided on the last Amendment, after a Debate of six or seven hours and by a majority of 72. My view is that we are simply now dis- cussing the converse of the last Amendment, and if this Amendment is carried we will then reverse the decision on the last Amendment upon exactly the same arguments. I hope, under those circumstances, that the hon. Baronet will withdraw his Amendment, or that a Division will be taken at once.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

My right hon. Friend is not quite so logical on this occasion as he generally is. He must himself see that if the statement he has made were correct, you, Sir, would have ruled the Amendment out of Order, because it would be clearly out of Order to raise precisely the same question which has been already decided. What is the fact? The last Amendment proposed that the existing system should continue as at present. That was negatived by the decision of the Committee. Now we are considering what we shall substitute for the existing system. I would point out that if we were to accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite it does not at all follow that we should leave the system exactly as it is, because there are many Amendments which might be added to it. I have had time to consider the arguments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward in defence of the proposal of the Government. They consisted largely of personal banter, into which I will not follow my right hon. Friend. He accused me of timidity. I do not mind admitting that I am timid of entrusting this power to an official Department. Our Government officials have quite enough of authority in this matter already, and I think it would be a serious thing, indeed, to set them up to decide questions of this kind which raise so much personal feeling. The sub-section does go a little too far, and I am, therefore, perfectly prepared to support the Amendment.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, he had to say that his colleagues would divide on this Amendment. They regarded the Provisional Order system as the palladium of property, one of the few securities left to them in this revolutionary age, and to substitute the Local Government Board for the authority of Parliament would be to barter away their Parliamentary birthright for a mess of pottage. He, therefore, warned the Government that they would resist the proposal now and at all future stages of the Bill.

MR. LEES-KNOWLES

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might attach some weight to the views of Lord Salisbury on this question. Speaking in connection with the Public Worship (Sites) Bill Lord Salisbury had said— I certainly should resist so dangerous an innovation, and if I were to give it to anybody I should certainly hesitate to give such a power to a Public Department. It is the strangest proposal that a Public Department should have the power without appeal of giving any reason for its action of taking a man's land away against his will, and that without any limitation as to situation. A Public Department is not an impartial body. It is a body of very excellent and skilled civil servants governed by a politician. The Local Government Board has existed for some 20 years. I do not know much of its internal machinery; but I know that it has been governed again and again by men of very extreme political opinions; and this is a matter upon which political and polemical controversies would be raised, and very bitter feelings might be very often excited. If you were to sanction the innovation of giving to a Public Department, or to any authority less than that of Parliament, the right to alienate a man's land, surely you would not vest that power in political men, who, whatever the integrity of their character may be, yet, by the nature of the contests in which they are involved, must be deeply biassed in cases in which their action is called for whenever political and polemical controversies are brought up. He certainly thought that the words of Lord Salisbury ought to bear weight. With regard to the expense of Provisional Orders, a Return issued by the Local Government Board showed that the highest Departmental charge in respect of any such Order was £14 2s., which he thought was very cheap. He held that there ought to be some final Court of Appeal, such as an appeal to the House, to relieve the Government Department, and he thought it would be less expensive than the mode proposed by the Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 64.—(Division List, No. 350.)

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said, he had an Amendment to propose to the sub-section, and he was not without hope that the Government would be willing to accept it. The House had been constantly told that the great safeguard against improper orders being made by the Local Government Board was that the Orders would come under the review of Parliament. But, so far as he had been able to gather, there would be no effective review of the conduct of the Local Government Board, unless it were in moving the reduction of the President's salary at the close of the Session, but it was idle to say that that would be a safeguard. It was most important that the power of review should be vested in Parliament, for they were now practically establishing a precedent which might have very far-reaching consequences in the future, and which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham had previously pointed out, could hardly stop at the question of allotments. His proposal was to adopt in this Bill a procedure which was common in many Acts of Parliament. He proposed that the Order should be laid before Parliament as soon as it was made, which would give Parliament an opportunity, if necessary, of passing an opinion upon it. He therefore moved to leave out the rest of the words of Sub-section (a), in order to insert after "Council," in line 30, the words— Provided that every such Order when made by the Board instead of being confirmed by Act shall forthwith, after the making thereof, be laid before both Houses of Parliament if Parliament is then sitting, and if not then forthwith after the commencement of the next ensuing Session, and either House of Parliament may, upon Motion made within 40 days after such Order has been laid before it, annul the same as from the date of the making thereof.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, line 30, to leave out from the word "Council," to the end of the sub-section in order to insert the words—"Provided that every such Order when made by the Board instead of being confirmed by Act shall forthwith, after the making thereof, be laid before both Houses of Parliament if Parliament is then sitting, and if not, then forthwith after the commencement of the next ensuing Session, and either House of Parliament may, upon Motion made within 40 days after such Order has been laid before it, annul the same as from the date of the making thereof."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I really should prefer the Provisional Order system to this, as being much more expeditious and effective. Our theory is that this is a matter of dealing with small amounts, and that it is of small importance. The House has thought that it would be better to leave it in the hands of the Local Government Board, and it has practically decided that there shall be no review by Parliament. I cannot conceive a more cumbrous or useless mode of reviewing the decision of the Board than that which the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The right hon. Gentleman said it has been stated that the proper way of reviewing these things was by attacking the salary of the President of the Local Government Board on the Estimates.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, what he stated was that it had been repeatedly held out to the Opposition from the other side of the House that an opportunity of challenging and reviewing the decisions of the Board would be afforded by criticising the conduct of the Local Government Board in this House.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what was said, which was that if the President of the Local Government Board for the time being should pursue a course of conduct which is politically improper then Parliament could arraign him for his misdemeanours. It is absolutely absurd to suppose that either House of Parliament can review these cases in detail, and either condemn or approve the conduct of the Department in dealing with them. The House has decided that the present is a costly and ineffective mode, and I think that to that decision we must adhere.

MR. E. STANHOPE (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

said, that as regarded the expense, there could be no objection to the scheme. His right hon. Friend's Amendment did not involve any expenditure or any considerable delay. The Opposition desired to retain some check on the proceedings of the Local Government Board. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the best check was the Provisional Order, and he preferred it, but the Committee had objected to it. His right hon. Friend proposed his Amendment as the second best mode of checking the proceedings of the Local Government Board. The proposal of his right hon. Friend was reasonable, and had been adopted in cases of much greater importance than the one under consideration.

SIR W. HARCOURT

The hon. Member for Peterborough has stated that in the City of London the Local Authorities have power to make these Orders without the consent of Parliament.

MR. E. STANHOPE

I do not think that that is so.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Well, that the Corporation has such power. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to be a reductio ad absurdum, and will necessarily create delay in coming to a final decision in these matters. We desire to come to a speedy and final decision, but right hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to take every possible means of postponing the evil day. If Amendments of this kind are brought on one after another people will begin to doubt whether you are really as solicitous to carry the Bill as you profess to be.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman only showed how very slight was his acquaintance with the taking of land in the country. His proposal would not necessarily create much delay. Land could not be taken compulsorily without at least six months' notice to quit, but where it was taken by voluntary means, which he had always maintained to be the best course, this delay could be avoided. Delay was absolutely inseparable from compulsion. The 40 days he suggested would add comparatively little to the delay which would inevitably result from the process of putting the compulsory clauses into force. He would be willing to reduce the number of days if that would meet the right hon. Gentleman's objection, but upon the general ground that this would necessarily create great delay in the provision of allotments he gave the most emphatic contradiction.

SIR W. HARCOURT

The right hon. Gentleman does not understand what I said. It is not a question of days but of months before Parliament meets. Does he not perceive that notice cannot be given until the thing is finally decided? There may, therefore, be a postponement of six months before you can give the notice.

SIR J. DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, he did not think the President of the Local Government Board really understood the nature of the subject he was dealing with in this clause. The Committee had agreed that land was to be taken compulsorily by order of a Government official, of whom the people in the country knew nothing. He would like to know how long that system was likely to last if the cases in which he interfered were numerous? So far as large landed proprietors were concerned, perhaps it would not be of great importance, because it might only touch fragments of what they had got; but as regarded the land of small proprietors lying near the towns, the action which was taken would deprive those estates of all value, and that would occur in a great number of cases. He suggested that some semblance of Parliamentary control should be introduced. Unless they could satisfy the country that Parliament had control over the question of compulsion, he did not believe that the measure could stand for five years. He would point out that there was a very different thing between a Municipality taking land for the improvement of streets, which was taking land in the interest of the community, and taking land, as in this case, from one private person to give it to another.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, the Act he had referred to, passed in 1817, applied to the whole of London, as well as to the City, and it was so simple that all were satisfied with the working of it. They had put it in force in the City about a thousand times, and spent millions of money under it. It was an Act to allow the Local Authorities to take land compulsorily without the necessity of coming to Parliament.

MR. BRODRICK

said, it ought not to be allowed to go out to the country that the Opposition had endeavoured to introduce delay into the operation of this Allotments Clause. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that notice must be given to an owner whose land it was proposed to take before the holding of an inquiry by the Local Government Board could lake place at all, and practically Parliament could dispose of a case as promptly as the President of the Local Government Board. He appealed to the Government to reconsider the dangerous precedent they were making in dispensing with the control of Parliament, and pointed out that Parliament would not import this principle into other cases in which State Departments required land for public purposes.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 47.—(Division List, No. 351.)

SIR R. PAGET

moved the omission of Sub-section (b.) He said, that some Members had fallen into the error of imagining that this 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase had the force of statutory authority. This was not the case, but it was a system which had grown up. He contended that there were cases in which it would be unjust not to allow for compulsion in fixing the amount of compensation, but they ought to have a Bill dealing with this subject. He moved the omission of the sub-section.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, line 32, to leave out Sub-section (b.) —(Sir R. Paget.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

admitted that there was no statutory right to give this allowance of what was called 10 per cent., although he was very sorry to say that a much larger figure was often given. But although there was no statutory authority for it, he was advised it had grown up for so many years, and had judicial sanction to such an extent, that for all practical purposes it was recognised that valuers in putting a valuation on land taken compulsorily under the Lands Clauses Act put an addition to the value they had arrived at because of the compulsory purchase. The insertion of the clause in no way interfered with either the compensation for severance or to the land which might be injuriously affected by certain of the land being taken. If injury was done by severance the landowner was compensated for that, and if a farm was injuriously affected in consequence of taking a particular portion which might result in injury to the rest of the property, compensation was given for that. All they wanted to do was to prevent the valuer putting on another sum over and above this, because it was compulsorily taken. In a recent arbitration for a large public purpose, in which the Solicitor General was concerned, every expert witness told the arbitrator that he invariably put 25 per cent. on agricultural land taken; so that it was not a question of 10 per cent. The Government attached importance to this clause, which they did not believe would inflict any injury upon the landowner.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge)

moved to insert the following sub-section at the end of the clause: — The provisions of 'The Railways Clauses Act, 1845,' Sections 77 to 85 (both inclusive), with respect to mines shall, in relation to any land purchased by a Parish Council, be deemed to be incorporated with this Act, and for the purpose of such incorporation the said provisions of 'The Railways Clauses Act, 1845,' shall be construed as if the expression 'the Company ' referred to the Parish Council, and as if expressions relating to the railway or works referred to the buildings or works for the purpose of which the land is purchased by the Parish Council, and as if the expression 'the special Act' referred to the Order to be obtained by virtue of this Act. No hiring of land compulsorily under the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to include any minerals under such land, or any rights with respect thereto. He said, this form of Sub-section was proposed by him in order to meet the difficulties which must otherwise inevitably arise in mineral districts, from the exercise of the compulsory power to acquire lands proposed to be given to Parish Councils by the Bill. The inclusion of minerals in a compulsory purchase by the Parish Councils would be equally disastrous to the owners of the minerals and the Parish Councils, as the interposition of isolated ownerships of minerals in the midst of large mineral fields without rights of communication would be fatal to the development of such fields, whilst the necessity of acquiring and paying for the minerals as well as the surface would entail a heavy burden on the Councils, and would probably have the practical effect of precluding them from exercising their powers altogether in mineral districts. As the Bill at present stands, under Section 9, Sub-section 3, land might be compulsorily acquired by virtue of Orders obtained under Section 3 of the Allotments Act, 1887. By the last mentioned Act lands might be acquired compulsorily under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts by virtue of Provisional Orders made by a County Authority and confirmed by Parliament; but it was provided by Section 3, Subsection 8— That the County Authority shall not make a Provisional Order for purchasing any rights to coal or metalliferous ore. The meaning of this sub-section was far from clear, though it was probably intended to signify that in case land was purchased which contained coal or metalliferous ore, the right of such coal or ore was to be reserved from the purchase, and, if that were so, it would leave the respective rights of the owners of the surface and minerals in a very vague and uncertain position. To obviate the difficulties, he proposed to have recourse to the well-considered and well-tried clauses of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act relating to miners, which would relieve the Parish Councils from any necessity to purchase in the first instance, leaving them, however, the power of purchasing a right to support in the event of the minerals being about to be worked, and at the same time securing to the owners of the minerals the right to make necessary mining communications without injury to the surface, and giving to the Parish Councils full power to see that the mines were not contrary to the provisions of the Act. The last words of the proposed sub-section related to the case of compulsory hirings. It was obviously necessary, and invariably it was the case in mining districts, that the minerals and all rights respecting them were reserved from hirings, and it was proposed that this should be provided for by this Bill in the case of compulsory hirings by the Parish Councils.

Amendment proposed, In page 8; line 5, at end, add—"(e) The provisions of the 'The Railways Clauses Act, 1845,' Sections 77 to 85 (both inclusive), with respect to mines shall, in relation to any land purchased by a Parish Council, be deemed to be incorporated with this Act, and for the purpose of such incorporation the said provisions of 'The Railways Clauses Act, 1845,' shall be construed as if the expression 'the Company' referred to the Parish Council, and as if expressions relating to the railway or works referred to the buildings or works for the purpose of which the land is purchased by the Parish Council, and as if the expression 'the special Act' referred to the Order to be obtained by virtue of this Act. No hiring of land compulsorily under the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to include any minerals under such land, or any rights with respect thereto."—(Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,), Forfar

who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that if certain verbal alterations were made in the Amendment it might be accepted. The Amendment should apply to land purchased by "or on behalf of" a Parish Council, and then, after "land purchased," they might leave out "by a Parish Council." These words might be left out without any damage to the spirit of the Amendment. If the hon. Member would accept these alterations, leaving out the final words, they might adopt the Amendment.

MR. W. LONG

said, there was an impression amongst persons interested in the clause that these final words as to hiring were unnecessary. The first part of the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman might well accept, because no doubt it would apply to all classes of property acquired by the Local Authority, and if it were by gift, the donor would be able to make his own arrangements in regard to minerals. If the words were struck out now, would the Government reconsider the matter between this and Report?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would make a suggestion which might save time. He would propose that the Government should take the Amendment as it was proposed, reserving to themselves the right to carefully consider the wording of it before the Report stage, and of dealing with the question of minerals. They were likely to get into a mess if they attempted to deal with the question at the present moment in a hurry.

MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)

said, the words "or any rights with respect thereto" were very wide. They would include even the right to support. There were many cases, especially in the North of England, where lands were let on the understanding that compensation should be paid for subsidence.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he did not think there would be any difficulty in the matter. It was not intended to allow the mine-owner to destroy the surface. He did not think the words would have that effect, but the Government would consider the matter and take measures to guard against such a possibility.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, he thought the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act distinctly safeguarded the surface, and that was one of the reasons why he proposed the Amendment.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

said, it appeared to him most dangerous for the Government to accept Amendments of this sort in the dinner hour, and without notice to their supporters. It was said that the words could be altered on Report if necessary.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The principle of the Amendment is accepted.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, that made the matter worse, because if the Government only promised to consider the matter between this and Report they would not be pledged to anything. If they acquired land for allotments and allowed someone else to take minerals from beneath it, it might drop away and become worthless. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not act in the matter in a hurry.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he would endorse what had been said by the hon. Member for Peterborough, and would urge the Government to reconsider their position. He was not at all disposed to acquiesce in the Government backing down to proposals of this kind coming from the other side. They had spent hours and hours discussing the question of the compulsory acquisition of land with hon. Gentlemen who represented the landlords' interest, and they had now come to a matter which seemed to him equally deserving of consideration. He did not wish to prolong discussion un- necessarily, and whilst he wished to give the Government every support he could, he was not disposed to support them in everything which went against the grain from a Radical point of view.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would point out to the hon. Member who had just sat down, and the hon. Member who had preceded him, that the Government were not acting precipitately or "backing down "in this matter. They had carefully considered the Amendment with the assistance of their Legal Advisers, and had come to the conclusion that the words down to the word "No" must be inserted in the Bill as a matter of justice and law. The last few lines, the Solicitor General believed, were already covered by the Bill, but the Government reserved to themselves the right to put them in or not as they thought necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. C. HOBHOUSE (Wilts, Devizes)

said, he desired to move to leave out Sub-section 4 in order, formally, to repeat a question put to the President of the Local Government Board, but which the right hon. Gentleman had not answered—namely, what had become of the Allotments Act of 1890? The subsection was similar to one already existing in that Act, the object of which was to provide that where the District Council did not do their duty there should be an appeal to the County Council. Were these two enactments to go on side by side? If so, serious confusion would prevail, and no one would know how to proceed. They already had three authorities interested in this question of allotments, and this subsection would bring in a fourth. He thought the District Councils were to be established on such a popular basis that they would never fail to do their duty. Certainly the argument in 1890 was that it was necessary to give an appeal from the Rural Sanitary Bodies because they were not a popularly Elected Body.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 6, to leave out Sub-section 4. —(Mr. C. Hobhouse.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section 4 stand part of the Clause."

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that what was intended by the Bill, and what he believed was carried out by it, was simply to add to the methods recognised by the Acts of 1887 and 1890 one other which would not interfere with them in any way, but enable the initiative to be taken by the Parish Council. Wherever a Parish Council came into operation, no doubt the existing system would be modified, but what was capable of being done under the original Acts would not be interfered with. Parishioners would still be able to apply under the original Acts just as if the Parish Councils Bill had not been passed. It was thought, however, that when the Parish Councils came into operation, as they would be Representatives Body, they ought to have a more speedy method of obtaining allotments.

MR. W. LONG

said, that no doubt the Solicitor General, who was in a measure responsible for the Bill, was right; but he confessed he could not follow the hon. Gentleman in his explanation. Earlier in the evening the Government had laid it down that the District Council was an infinitely superior authority for these purposes to the County Council; but now they went on to give an appeal to the County Council in the event of the District Council neglecting their duty. He failed to see how the conduct of the Government could be called consistent.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, it had already been pointed out that Sub-section 4 only referred to the possible and, he hoped, not very probable case of the District Council failing to do its duty. In that event the parish would go to the County Council; but if the District Council did its duty there would be no reason to appeal.

MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)

said that, in other words, the County Council was constituted a Court of Appeal against the District Council. He was glad the hon. Member for Sunderland was present, because the other night, in very vigorous language, the hon. Member protested, on behalf of the County Councils, against their being constituted Courts of Appeal from the District Councils. He (Mr. Bolton) did not know by what right the hon. Member spoke for the County Councils throughout the country; but he certainly took it on himself the other night—

THE CHAIEMAN

This is clearly irrelevant.

Mr. STOREY

rose

An hon. MEMBER: Take no notice of him.

MR. STOEEY

said, he did not intend to notice the reference which had been made to himself. He wished to point out that au analogous position of things to that created by the Bill existed with regard to the housing of the working classes. When the Rural Sanitary Authority did not do its duty the County Council could take up the business, and that in the County of Durham had been found to be a very valuable state of the law. In that county they had been able to secure several thousands of decent houses for workmen which did not exist three years ago.

MR. W. LONG

said, his complaint had been of the inconsistency of the Government, who one moment said the County Council could not be trusted as the District Council could be—that the County Council would not have the sympathy of the parishes—and the next moment put the County Council in superior authority to the District Council.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he did not think there was any inconsistency in what the Government had said. They had stated that a district inquiry was better in the first place, but if the District Council would not do its duty a Court of Appeal would be required.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

asked whether it was desirable that this unnecessary tangle should be introduced into the Bill? The District Council should be vested with discretion. In the discharge of its duties, like other Public Bodies, it was amenable to the influences of its constituents; therefore, it seemed unnecessary to provide that the County Council should have appellate jurisdiction.

MR. C. HOBHOUSE

said, he did not wish to press the Amendment, which he had only moved in the interest of the simplicity of the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. J. GRANT LAWSON, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 8, line 18, after the word "shall," to insert the words "if the land is required for allotments be defrayed in manner provided by Section 10 of 'The Allotments Act 1887,' and in any other case.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Restrictions on expenditure by Parish Councils.)

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 8, line 20, to leave out from the word " meeting," to end of line 21.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

I have six Amendments on the Paper which really all hang together, though they appear on different pages. I propose, first, that a Parish Council shall not, without the consent of the parish meeting, sell or exchange any parish property —that is provided by the Bill; secondly, that a Parish Council shall not, without the consent of the parish meeting and the approval of the Local Government Board, incur any expense or liability which will involve a loan; thirdly, that a Parish Council shall have power to incur expense, if the total amount shall not exceed a 1d. rate in the £1 in any financial year. If, however, the parish meeting passes a resolution by a particular majority, the Parish Council shall have power to incur further expense if the total amount shall not exceed a 4d. rate in the £1 in any financial year; and, fourthly, that the expenses of the Parish Council shall be paid in the same manner as "special expenses" of a Rural Sanitary Authority.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It will, perhaps, be convenient if I make a preliminary statement as to what the view of the Government is in connection with this clause. If the Committee accept the principles I wish to submit to their approval, I would ask them to accept my drafting. The hon. Gentleman's Amendments would set up a different scheme; but the proposal I make, and which is embodied in Amendments lower down, is to the effect that, without the consent of the parish meeting, the Parish Council shall not be able to incur any expense or liability which would involve a loan, or to incur any expense which would require anything beyond a 1d. rate. The parish meeting is to put its veto on either of these two proceedings. Then I go on to say that the Parish Council shall have the approval of the County Council to any loan; that the rate levied by the Parish Council for their ordinary expenses shall not exceed 1d. in the £1 in any local financial year; but that the Council may, for the purpose of paying the annual charge for money borrowed under this Act, or for meeting any special expenditure in that year which the County Council allows, raise the necessary sum in addition to the 1d. rate. Those are the safeguards which I wish to submit to the Committee as very rigidly circumscribing the financial action of the Council. [An hon. MEMBER: Too rigidly.] An hon. Member says "too rigidly." At any rate, I have not erred in the direction of laxity. My scheme is, first, that the parish meeting should be able to control any loan; secondly, that it should be able to control any expenditure in excess of the 1d. rate; and, thirdly, that the County Council should have to approve of any expenditure in excess of the 1d. rate. The Borrowing Clause is Clause 11, but we propose that, with reference to a loan, there shall be the consent of the County Council, and also that the Local Government Board shall have jurisdiction. The ordinary limit of the loan which the Local Government Board have power to sanction is two years of the assessable value; but I propose to limit the power even of the Local Government Board to one-half of the assessable value. I am willing to answer any inquiry any hon. Member may see fit to put on the subject. Of course, two other questions are involved. There are Members who desire to impose an extreme limit beyond which the Council cannot with any consent go, and there is also the more difficult question arising as to whether the new parish rate is to be levied as an ordinary poor rate or whether it is to be levied under what I may call the special expenses provisions of the Public Health Act of 1875. Those are all the questions which I think arise in the clause.

MR. W. LONG (Wilts, Devizes)

I think we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the course he has taken in connection with this clause, which is certainly not the least important section in the Bill. The course he has adopted must, I think, be appreciated by every Member of the Committee, and will, I think, in all probability facilitate and shorten the discussion on the clause. The proposals of the right hon. Gentleman are undoubtedly more satisfactory in their present form than they were as they at first appeared in the Bill. At the same time, they appear to me to be open to two objections. But before stating my objections I would say a word as to the course which I think the Committee should adopt. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should proceed to his Amendment on line 27 and there discuss the whole question. Of course, one has to be extremely careful in these proceedings in Committee that one does not deprive oneself of the right of raising some particular point by accepting what seems at first sight, and which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman means in this case to be a perfectly fair offer. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset (Sir R. Paget) raises the question of limit at a rather earlier point by an Amendment to line 22. There are also the Amendments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Lees Knowles) has referred, and which fix a limit to the rate of 4d. I do not feel myself competent to advise my hon. Friend on this point, but if I can be assured that by adopting the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman we shall not be precluded from addressing ourselves to the question of limit, I shall personally be prepared to assent to the discussion taking place on the proposals of the Government. If, however, we should be precluded from taking that course, I should recommend that the discussion be taken on one of the Amendments to which I have referred. It seems to me that the objections to the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman are two-fold and Of a very different character. In the first place they seem to me to hamper somewhat unduly the Local Authorities, and in the second place they leave the door very wide open to extravagance. They hamper the authorities unduly because they fix the limit at a 1d. rate. I will not trouble the Committee by calling attention to what a very minute income that would produce except that by saying that the product would vary from as low a sum as £2 or £3 to an amount which would never be very large. It is possible that with a Parish Council and a County Council, both inclined to extravagance, both might err in the opposite direction. I do not think the Committee desire either in the first place to tie their hands too tightly or to leave it to any ill-advised Council to indulge in extravagance. I think, therefore, it would be well if we could arrive at some compromise by which we limit expenditure to a fixed sum. I believe that the wish we are all animated by is that these Councils should have reasonable powers and yet at the same time that they should not be allowed to indulge in extravagance. I need hardly say I honestly desire that we should make fair and reasonable progress with this Bill, while at the same time giving full and free attention to its most important details.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do not want to have any difficulty hereafter, and I think that perhaps some difficulty might arise if we shut out the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset (Sir R. Paget). If, therefore, he would now move his Amendment, it would be well if we cleared that out of the way first. If it were carried it would hereafter affect my rating clause.

SIR R. PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

moved the following Amendment:— In page 8, line 22, to leave out from "incur" to end of Sub-section (ii), and insert "any expense or liability which will, combined with their other expenses, whether for repayment of loans or of interest thereon, or putting in force any of the adoptive Acts, or exercising any of the additional powers set forth in Clause 8, or for any other purposes whatsoever, involve a rate exceeding 4d. in the £1 for any local financial year. He said, he felt bound to make a protest against any increase of rating power. If it had been possible to obtain the consent of the Government to the abolition of the compound householder, he should have been ready to waive, if not all, at any rate a great part of his objections to the clause on this point. The compound householder had been left in command of the situation, and he, therefore, felt obliged to try and bring the expenditure within some kind of reasonable control. To some hon. Members who might be more familiar with borough than with county work, a limit of 4d. might appear to be absurd. A 4d. rate in a borough was, he admitted, a comparatively insignificant thing, inasmuch as it was levied simply and solely on the value of the houses the ratepayers happened to inhabit. It was quite a different thing, however, in the country. A farmer's income was assumed to be half his rental, so that if his rental was £400 a year, he was supposed to make an income of £200 a year. A 4d. rate, however, would be levied not on the £200 a year, but on the £400 a year, and it would, therefore, mean an 8d. rate on his income. If the Committee saddled the farmers or the yeomen of this country with a rate of this kind it would impose a burden of a most grievous character. It might be well that such things as labourers' recreation grounds, museums, and skittle alleys should be provided for the people in the country villages, and he certainly did not grudge them such delights, but he contended that if as a nation they said that such things were for the national advantage, they as a nation should bear the burden of the expense. There was no reason whatever why it should form an additional burden upon land, and if Parliament said it must do so, he contended that the burden ought, at all events, to be restricted to reasonable limits. He did not quite understand that portion of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) which provided that a Council for the purpose of paying the annual charge for money borrowed under the Act, or of making any special expenditure which the County Council allowed this year, and so on. What was the special expenditure that the County Council might allow? For what purposes, was it to be allowed, and to what extent? The amount must, of course, be regarded as uncertain. Having then one unknown sum in connection with special expenditure there was an equally unknown sum in connection with the adoptive Acts. If the Libraries Act or the Act dealing with parish rooms were put in force, an enormous burden would be cast upon a small parish for the purchase of land and the erection of buildings.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The expenditure under the Libraries Act cannot exceed 1d.

SIR R. PAGET

said, the right hon. Gentleman was quite right. He had forgotten for a moment that such was the case. They were all agreed that if there was one expenditure more reasonable than another it was the expenditure for providing a parish reading room. But if the adoptive Acts were adopted one after the other they would, of necessity, incur a large expenditure, for, with the exception of the Public Libraries Act, there was no limit to the expenditure under these Acts. He wanted to limit the expenditure for all purposes to 4d. in the £1. He believed that if the expenditure exceeded the amount, a serious grumble would go forth from all parts of the Kingdom. If a 4d. rate were to be imposed, that would be equivalent to an Income Tax of 8d. in the £1 upon a farmer paying £400 a year rent and earning an income of £200 per annum. He hoped the Government would assent to the 4d. limit, though he had some hesitation in fixing it even as high as that figure, and had only done so in order that he might be extremely liberal in meeting the views of the promoters of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 22, to leave out from the word "incur" to end of Sub-section (ii), and insert " any expense or liability which will, combined with their other expenses, whether for repayment of loans or of interest thereon, or putting in force any of the adoptive Acts, or exercising any of the additional powers set forth in Clause 8, or for any other purposes whatsoever, involve a rate exceeding 4d. in the £1 for any local financial year."—(Sir R. Paget.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I should be glad if I could accept the Amendment, because it would carry out my own views, and many of the difficulties of discussing this clause would be simplified by fixing a limit. But after investigation I find that the proposal is impracticable. The Amendment includes the expense of putting in force any of the adoptive Acts. From a Departmental Return presented to me I find that of these Acts the Watching and Lighting Act is in force in a large number of rural parishes; and the 4d. limit is already exceeded in many cases. Take the hon. Baronet's own county. There are rural parishes in Somersetshire in which the lighting and watching rate only is 8d., 7½d., 6d., 4½d., 4d., and 3½d. In Dorsetshire the rate for the same purpose run from 3d. to l1d.; and in Wiltshire from l¾d. to 1s.

SIR R. PAGET

said, the places which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to in Somersetshire were really small towns with Urban Authorities and not places to which the Bill would apply.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

If the hon. Baronet tells me that there are urban districts to which the Act will not apply, I admit that there is no force in what I am saying, for I do not want to deceive the Committee in any way. But the Department have reported to me that it is absolutely impossible to fix such a limit as is now proposed, because that limit has already been far exceeded in many rural parishes. There are what appears to me to be very high rates levied in these rural parishes, which absolutely prevent us fixing any limit which includes the adoptive Acts. The Free Libraries Act is, I think, practically the only Act that is likely to be put in force under the new régime that is not in force now, and the limit which can be raised under that Act is 1d. in the £1. The Lighting and Watching Act is in force in a greater number of parishes than I had imagined, and seems to be an expensive matter; but the other adoptive Acts are practically not adopted. What the Committee have to consider is that we cannot fix a limit, including the adoptive Acts, at 4d. or 6d. or 1s., for the rates already levied in rural parishes exceed that amount. If you adopt the Amendment you would practically say to those parishes—"You shall not only not levy the rates under this Bill, but you shall not levy the rates already imposed." There are reasons for rejecting this Amendment which has otherwise my hearty sympathy. I wish we could see a way to limit the expenditure. My scheme is, I think, the best scheme that can be arrived at. I candidly admit, however, that a 1d. rate is very small, and that many parishes will not be able to do much with their 1d. But the expenditure of money is not, in my opinion, everything under this Bill. The education in administrative affairs, interest, and life which the parishes will enjoy is outside the expenditure of money. But there must be some expenditure, and I have placed the limit at 1d. in the £1, giving leave to every parish to go to the County Council for powers for further taxation to meet exceptional cases of expenditure. The County Council will have power to check any additional expenditure, and I can conceive no better tribunal for the purpose, inasmuch as it will be familiar with the circumstances and needs of the district. Someone suggested that we should fix a limit outside the adoptive Acts. That is a very taking proposal, if you look at it in one light. If the Committee are disposed to be liberal in the matter it is not for me to set up my judgment against them. But there is this danger—that if you fix the limit, outside the adoptive Acts, at, say 3d., every parish will say that Parliament has authorised them to levy a rate of 3d. In any case, it is a point on which we need not have any controversial discussion. We are all animated by the desire, on the one hand, to enable the parishes to legitimately work their new machinery, and, on the other, to restrain them from indulging in unnecessary expenditure. Let expansion come in the future. We ought not to begin on too large a scale, but moderately, and then if the system works well I have no doubt it will in time be looked upon more favourably by Parliament. Should, however, the Committee be disposed to alter the limit of 1d., I will not object to any increase that might, be forced upon me.

MR. STOREY

said, that there was nothing in the speech of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board with which he was more in agreement than that they should begin with those Parish Councils in a moderate way, and with a moderate income. They had an admirable precedent in the case of the Municipal Corporations, which originally could only borrow to the extent of their rateable value. Then Parliament extended the power to twice the rateable value, and finally, for sanitary purposes, they could borrow without limit. As to the Parish Councils, he would admit the wisdom of the advice that they should begin on a moderate scale, but he thought it should be a sufficient scale. The proposal of the President of the Local Government Board was that the Parish Council might extend 1d. in the £1 unless they went to the County Council and asked for increased powers. He would submit that to fix a 1d. limit was to play at making Parish Councils and not to make them. He would appeal to hon. Members opposite, who, he thought, were quite as anxious that these Councils should be a success as hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side were, and he would ask them what was the use of a 1d. rate?

MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)

I rise to Order. I submit that the question before us is not the question of the penny, but whether we are going to set a limit to the total expenditure.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member is in Order.

MR. STOREY

said, he intended to propose an Amendment in favour of a limit. What was the use of a 1d. rate? If they were going to establish Parish Councils let them give them reasonable powers to spend what they needed for the parish. He would not propose that they should have unlimited powers. He was prepared to accept a reasonable limit, but a limit of 1d. was absolutely nonsensical. He knew of a parish where the rateable value was £2,000, and there a 1d. rate would produce £8 6s. 8d. a year. The necessary expenditure in such a parish would include the cost of at least four parish meetings, and perhaps a poll; the cost of the ordinary correspondence, pen, ink, paper, and blotting paper, and of keeping the books and documents of the parish, and the cost of looking after valuation appeals. These necessary expenses he estimated at £16 a year. But if the Parish Council was to be of any use it must deal with questions of water supply, allotments, recreation grounds, sanitation, rights of way, charities, and the adoptive Acts. The cost of this work he placed at £50; and the amount of revenue available would be £8 6s. 8d. The process of going to the County Council for power to raise further revenue was cumbersome and likely to be productive of very little good in many cases. He thought there should be as little interference as possible with the parish by the County Council. The House ought to trust the people in the villages with a reasonable amount of expenditure to begin with, and if the hon. Baronet was at one with him on that the only difficulty between them was the question as to what the limit should be.

SIR R. PAGET

I should like the electors to pay some share of the taxation.

MR. STOREY

said, that was another point on which he was disposed to agree with the hon. Baronet. He had spent 50 years in the world, and he had never met a grown man yet who did not pay his share in local and Imperial taxation, for if he did not pay directly he paid indirectly. But if the point arose, he would agree with the hon. Baronet in a reasonable way. However, the proposal which the hon. Baronet made as to the limit was unreasonable, for the President of the Local Government Board had clearly shown that the rates in many rural parishes were already more than 4d. in the pound. He, therefore, begged to move, as an Amendment to the hon. Baronet's Amendment—

THE CHAIRMAN

It is not competent for the hon. Member to move an Amendment unless the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," is negatived.

MR. STOREY

said, he would indicate the Amendment he suggested to the hon. Baronet's proposal, in the hope that it might be agreeable to both sides of the House. His suggestion was that words should be introduced into the Amendment providing that the expenditure of the parish, except the expense of putting in force any of the adoptive Acts, should not involve a rate exceeding 6d. in the £1 for any financial year. The effect of that suggestion would be that with regard to the adoptive Acts, the parishes would retain exactly the same powers as they now possessed under the law; and that in considering what the new powers of taxation of the parishes should be, the adoptive Acts should be left out of account. He agreed with the President of the Local Government Board that there was very little likelihood of any rural parishes adopting any of these Acts except that valuable Act the Public Libraries Act. But, leaving these adoptive Acts on one side altogether, his proposal was that the Parish Councils, with the consent of the parish meeting, but not otherwise, should have power to levy a rate of 6d. in the £1. In the case of a village with 1,500 to 2,000 inhabitants and a rateable value of £14,000, the 6d. rate would bring in £350 a year, and that a Parish Council should expend £350 a year on all the local purposes involved was not an extraordinary proposition. If there was any real desire on either side of the House that the Bill should be effective, it would be useless to limit the rate to less than 6d. in the £1 for all purposes. At the same time, nothing tended more to steady an elected body and to make it prudent and careful than the knowledge that there was a limit to its expenditure, and, therefore, he was in favour of some limit.

MR. E. STANHOPE

I have heard with great interest the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite, because he and my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment indicated their desire to arrive at some principle of limit. I am glad to think that there seems to be a general feeling that some principle of limit should be arrived at, and I hope we may be able to come to a unanimous decision on the question. We on this side of the House have no desire that the powers of expenditure of the Parish Councils should be unlimited, or, at any rate, that they should be uncontrolled by adequate and proper limits. At the same time, we do not desire that the new bodies should be deprived of the ordinary and proper means to carry those measures into effect. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has raised, very moderately and reasonably, the objection that it is quite improper to adopt the limit in the form proposed, because of the difficulties of the adoptive Acts. He has shown to us quite conclusively that in some parishes the expenditure incurred is beyond the 4d. limit, and, therefore, the proposal to establish a 4d. limit is, under the circumstances, impossible to accept. But, on the other hand, when we look at the adoptive Acts, it will be seen that the right hon. Gentleman said with perfect truth that the Libraries' Act is the only Act likely to be put in force in the rural parishes, and in some of the large urban parishes the Lighting and Watching Act may also be adopted. So far as I am personally concerned, I think the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sunderland, that the Amendment should be amended by excluding the cost of putting the adoptive Acts into force in fixing the limit is perfectly reasonable, and I hope it will be accepted by the hon. Baronet. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that one danger of fixing a limit is that people will rush to the conclusion that they are expected to spend up to that limit. I believe the County Councils will prove to be a sufficient check to extravagance on the part of the Parish Councils. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, including the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sunderland; but as to what the precise limit should be, I think the opinion of the Committee ought to be obtained. If we are to exclude the adoptive Acts, I think the limit of 4d., or that of 6d., as suggested by the hon. Member for Sunderland, is one which the Committee may well consider. I myself am in favour of the limit of 4d. An agreement upon this, the financial question, will enable the clause to pass rapidly, and I hope, therefore, it may be arrived at.

MR. JEFFREYS

said, the Debate had clearly established that the 1d. rate introduced by the Government into the Bill was entirely deceptive and delusive. One reason why the Bill had been accepted in the country was because it was said it would cost very little; but now that they had come to consider what really it would cost, they found that it would cost the parishes a considerable amount of money.

MR. STOREY

It will only cost 6d.

MR. JEFFREYS

said, that in the small parish in which he lived to put a 6d. rate in force would cost the parish £100 a year, and that, according to the hon. Member for Sunderland, was nothing.

MR. STOREY

In that village I would vote against them spending the whole of the 6d.

MR. JEFFREYS

said, that what he wished to point out was that whether the 4d. or the 6d. limit was chosen, exclusive of the adoptive Acts, the putting of the Bill into operation would cost a considerable sum. It seemed to him very clear that they must exclude the adoptive Acts from any limit they might place upon the rate. If they were to do that he thought the 4d. limit would be reasonable. He hoped his hon. Friend would alter his Amendment so as to exclude the adoptive Acts, and that the Committee would accept it in that form.

SIR J. DORINGTON

said, he would gladly support his hon. Friend if he would exclude the adoptive Acts from his Amendment, and let the limit stand at 4d. If his hon. Friend were to do so the Committee might arrive at a reasonable arrangement on this question. He thought a 4d. rate would provide village communities with all they needed. The President of the Local Government Board had read a list of places where the Watching and Lighting Act was in force and cost a considerable sum of money. He knew a number of these places, and they were not places such as the House was legislating for now. They were exceptions to the rule, and were places that should have urban and not rural powers. He, therefore, thought the 4d. limit was a very proper and reasonable decision of the question.

MR. H. W. LAWSON

said, that it had been conclusively shown that the 1d. rate was delusive, and that it would be most unsatisfactory if introduced into the Bill. There was not sufficient elasticity about it. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would, under the circumstances, accept the Amendment to the Amendment which had been suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was much struck by the remark of the President of the Local Government Board that if they fixed a limit all the Local Authorities would feel entitled to go up to that limit. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the figure of 1d. should be allowed to stand in the clause, and that a limit should be fixed beyond which the County Council should not go. The hon. Member for Sunderland intended that there should not be any interference in the matter by the County Council at all. That would take away the safeguard which the Government had placed in the Bill. He did not hesitate to say that unlike some of his hon. and right hon. Friends, he was not prepared to make himself a party to any indefinite increase of rates, which were already far too heavy. He did not attach very much importance to the District Council or the County Council as a safeguard, but was quite in accord with the Government in introducing the District and County Councils if a limit were placed upon the amount to which they might go. He would suggest that the limit of a 6d. rate should be fixed, beyond which it would not be possible for the District Council or the County Council to go, and that the figure of 1d. be allowed to stand as in the clause.

MR. STRACHEY

said, he hoped the Government would accept the proposal to exclude the adoptive Acts, and limit the rate to 4d. He objected to a 6d. limit as being too high. They were suffering from great depression in the rural parishes, and this was not the moment for rushing into additional expense.

MR. W. LONG

said, he thought his right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet had not represented the position of his friends quite fairly. There was no idea on the part of any of his friends of making themselves parties to extravagant demands upon the rates. On the contrary, they desired that there should be a limit beyond which the Local Authorities should not go.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I wish the Committee clearly to understand this. If we come to an agreement, I do not want to have it reopened directly, and then said that we come to no such agreement. What I understand the proposal to be—and I want to have it clearly put —is that outside the expenditure of the adoptive Acts the Parish Council shall be entitled to a rateable power up to a certain figure. The hon. Member for Sunderland says 6d; the hon. Gentleman opposite says 4d.

COMMANDER BETHELL

Will that include expenditure in respect to allotments?

MR. T. H. BOLTON

And interests on debts?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That will include everything—expenditure on allotments, interest on debt, and everything else; and, under these circumstances, I think it would be wiser to take the figure of 6d. in the £1.

SIR R. PAGET

said, he would accept the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, he wished to know whether the rate named would cover contingent expenditure for which the Parish Council might become liable? For instance, in the case of land let on the hiring system, so long as the occupiers paid their rents the liability of the Parish Council was only contingent, but that contingent liability might possibly be turned into a real liability. He wished to know whether such a liability would be included in the limit?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

replied that it would, otherwise it would be no limit at all; it must be a complete and bonâ fide limit, and that was why he suggested 6d.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

asked if it would also include repayments of principal as well as payment of interest?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Yes.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he preferred the limit of 4d. to that proposed by the Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the 6d. would include all spending power without an appeal to the County Council, and that was why he consented to the 6d. instead of 4d.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STOREY

said, he wished to move the Amendment in the form in which he had already stated it. There was not the smallest doubt that under the Bill as drawn by the Government they would have a limit of 1d. without the County Council, but with the County Council there was no limit at all. He objected to that state of things. They wanted what was reasonable and fair for the well-being of the villages, and they intended to be as economical as they could, but when they took into account that the Parish Council had to take over all the present expenses of the Vestry they could not say it left anything like 6d. for the new powers given under the Act; therefore he submitted that if they were going to make a limit at all it should be such as would give them a reasonable chance of carrying on the work success- fully. Without labouring the matter further he would move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 22, to leave out from the word "incur," to the end of Sub-section (ii.) and insert "any expenditure or liability which will, combined with their other expenses, whether for repayment of loans or interest thereon, or exercising any of the additional powers set forth in Clause 8, or for any other purposes whatsoever, except the expense of putting in force any of the adoptive Acts, involve a rate exceeding 6d. in the £1 for any local financial year."— (Mr. Storey.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

thought the Amendment would not read with the clause, and that it would be better to incorporate it with one of his own later on.

MR. STOREY

said, it did not matter where the Amendment came, and he would ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

moved— In page 8, line 27, to leave out from the word "loan," to the end of line 38, and insert the words, "a rate levied by a Parish Council for their expenses, other than expenses under any of the adoptive Acts, shall not exceed 6d. in the £1 for any local financial year.

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

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said, that if this involved taking out the right hon. Gentleman's 1d. limit he should once more wish to suggest that, they retained the limit, and that they should place the maximum limit upon the amount to be sanctioned by the authority to whom appeal should be made. What he should propose to do was to retain the limit of the 1 d., as in the Bill, as a guide to a Parish Council what the expenditure ought to be.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, that if the allotment question was included in this proposal a difficulty might very easily arise, and the parish could not become liable for any default there might be.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is not the Question before the Committee. The Question before the Committee is that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause.

Question put, and negatived.

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

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

asked if the word "expenses" in the first line of the Amendment would include all debt charges?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said he was told it would, but he had no objection to include the words "debt charges and interest," but for the present he thought it better to adhere to his own words, and then if there was the slightest doubt it could be amended on Report.

SIR J. DORINGTON,

in line 1, moved to omit the word "six," and insert the word "four." On that side of the House and in the country generally there was a strong feeling that the limit should be kept low, and now that the adopted Acts were excluded he thought 4d. would answer every purpose. From what the right hon. Gentleman had said himself he was also anxious to limit the expenditure, and he (Sir J. Dorington) thought this would be a good opportunity to make the alteration.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, To leave out the word "sixpence," and insert the word "fourpence."—(Sir J. Dorington.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'sixpence' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said the Government had stated their reasons why they preferred 6d. to 4d., but as they desired the Committee to determine the matter he would suggest that a Division be now taken.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 94.—(Division List, No. 352.)

Words inserted.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, the Amendment be had placed on the Paper was one that commended itself to all agriculturists, or at any rate with the occupiers. Under the new powers of rating, the occupiers should be rated in the same way as they were now rated for special expenses under the Sanitary Acts. All farmers felt that they had a strong claim on Parliament in respect of matters for which they were rated. In the abstract it was most unjust that a farmer should be rated on his land when men of their own class in life, earning about the same income, were rated upon their houses. The question was as to particular cases. Parliament had already recognised the claims of farmers in this respect, and had formerly decided that it was most unjust to rate them in the ordinary way. They ordained that occupiers should be rated only at one-third of the value at which they were assessed. The farmer living outside the village ought not to be asked to pay more than his fair share of the special expenses, because he possessed nothing like the same amount of interest in such questions as recreation grounds and the provision of public rooms as the persons who lived in the village itself. He knew that the House of Commons altered very slowly an old system of taxation; but that was no reason why, when the opportunity offered, they should not, to the best of their ability, urge upon the House the justice of these claims. Nobody could deny that at the present moment the occupiers of this country were, compared with men in their own station of life, charged at a very much higher rate than they ought to be. This was the only opportunity they would have for years, and he therefore did not hesitate to ask the Committee to consider whether, in the future, they might not exercise that justice towards the occupiers which they had claimed for so long.

Amendment proposed. In page 8, line 39, to leave out sub-section (4), and insert the words -"The expenses of a Parish Authority shall be paid out of a rate to be called the parochial rate, and the Parish Authority shall, for the purpose of obtaining payment of such expenses, have the same powers as a Board of Guardians have for the purpose of obtaining contributions for. special expenses under Section 230 of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' and the Overseers shall comply with the order of the Parish Authority by levying the rate as if it were a rate for such special expenses."—(Commander Bethell.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'Subject to the provisions of this Act' stand part of the Clause."

MR. H. H. FOWLER,

who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that by the Public Health Acts and others there were certain exemptions granted with regard to the Rural Sanitary Authorities, and he had carefully avoided making the Parish Councils the Rural Sanitary Authority. To introduce these exemptions would be to destroy the limit fixed. He considered that the proposal of the Government was the best.

SIR R. PAGET

said, he could assure the Government that the acceptance of the Amendment would ease the pressure now felt. He hoped they had not heard the last word from them on the subject.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he thought they had some reason to complain of the way in which the Government had treated this question. There was no proposal in the Bill which, from the point of view of those interested in agricultural land, could deserve more consideration than this. Agricultural land had had many new charges thrown upon it which did not benefit the owners and occupiers, but rather benefited the urban population, and this was the latest, at a time when agriculture was most depressed. What they asked for was uniformity in these matters of rating for parish purposes. They had already got exemptions for certain purposes, and therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman's argument was correct, they had already invaded the 6d. limit, and reduced it to a very much smaller amount. Those who represented agricultural constituencies did not see why agricultural land should be specially burdened with these new charges. Something should be done to make the rating system uniform, and not to further complicate it. If the Bill passed in its present shape both uniformity and justice would be absent.

SIR W. HARCOURT

NO doubt, Sir, the question under consideration is a very important one, but it is one that I think the Committee thoroughly understands, and I hope, if that is so, it may now be settled and decided.

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)

said, he did not think the Committee entirely understood the position in which the question stood. He would like to know what the 6d. rate amounted to when it was applied to all the dif- ferent purposes which had been enumerated.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that so far as the allotment expenses were concerned, the exemption created by the Act of 1887 remained in force.

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said, he would like to point out that in the parish where he lived there was a population of 1,400, of whom 600 lived in the village and 800 in the parish. Unless this Amendment were carried, the 800 living in the parish would be taxed at full rates for the benefit of the 600. He put it to the Committee whether that would be just. Should it take effect, there would be a bitter feeling engendered in his constituency.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 83.—(Division List, No. 353.)

It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.