COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 30 November 1893 vol 19 cc110-207

[Progress, 29th November.]

[TENTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 8 (Additional powers of Parish Council).

Page 6, line 26, sub-section (d), omitted.

Question proposed, That the words, as amended, 'Where they can do so without interfering with the rights of any Water Company, Conservancy Authority, Sanitary Authority, Local Authority, Corporation, or person to utilise any well, spring, or stream within their parish and provide facilities for obtaining water therefrom,' be there inserted."— (Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, After the word "person," to insert the words "or by agreement with any such company, authority, corporation, or person."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."

Debate resumed.

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

said, that in reference to his Amendment, the discussion upon which was commenced the previous afternoon, it only proposed to give the Parish Council power by agreement with any persons interested to utilise wells, springs, or streams, for the benefit of the parish. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill stated, very much to his surprise, that the Parish Council would have no power to make any agreement, and if that were so he would ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the use of the clause at all. If they were not to be allowed to take wells, springs, or streams, either compulsorily or by agreement, he did not see that the clause possessed any value. Many of these springs and streams were situated on private property; and the owners would be very pleased to allow the locality to have the benefit of them so long as their rights had due recognition. He knew himself of a spring in one country parish sufficient to supply the whole district with water. It was situated on private property, and when other springs and wells in the neighbourhood were dried up, this spring was still available, and he had seen as many .as 15 or 20 water carts waiting their turn to get water, by the permission of the owner. Now, no doubt the owner would be only too glad to arrange with the Parish Council for the improvement of the road leading to the spring and to continue to allow the people to have the advantage of the water, but he would want his own right to the water recognised to safeguard him from the risk of an interference with his rights of property, and so under the Bill as framed he would be induced to prohibit the people getting the water rather than run any risk. But if the Parish Council was empowered to make agreements it could come to terms with him, and secure the benefit of the water for the parish. The Amendment, he ventured to assert, could do no harm; it was perfectly permissive, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would accept it.

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

I have carefully considered the advice I have received from competent advisers, and the result has been to strengthen the view I expressed yesterday that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. I hope the Committee will see the force of the considerations which influence the Government. They do not intend to make the Parish Council the Water Authority; the duty of supplying a district with water rests with the Rural Sanitary Authority, which it is hoped will, with the assistance of this House, be replaced by the District Council. Whether it be called a Rural Sanitary Authority or a District Council, it is to be the Water Authority of the district. The moment a similar responsibility is conferred upon a Parish Council there will be a conflict of jurisdiction, which will involve friction and expense. We have no intention of giving a Parish Council power to erect waterworks. I still adhere to the phrase that has been used about the village pump. We believe that there are a large number of villages in which there is an available supply, the proper utilisation of which, being the business of everybody, is not attended to by anybody. My hon. Friend has misconstrued what I said about the Parish Councils powers in this matter. I did not say they were not to come to agreement with the owners of the water, which, of course, they must do; but I said that it was inexpedient to give them any power of paying, because then the owners would say, "You can and you ought to pay us so much." I want to leave the matter to voluntary arrangement, in which it would be easy for the landowner to guard his private rights, by laying down conditions on which he would grant the use of the water. We must, there- fore, ask the Committee to accept the Clause as it is drawn.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have argued against his own Amendment. The Parish Council could not utilise any well, spring, or stream without laying down pipes, erecting cisterns, and incurring expense. Why put in this section at all, if it were a purely voluntary matter? If no money was to be spent by the Parish Council the clause was quite unnecessary.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, he was unconvinced by the reasoning of his right hon. Friend. To his mind the arguments adduced were altogether inadequate. In many villages there were neglected supplies of water running to waste. In some cases there were streams running by the roadside, and all that would be necessary would be to place a basin in which to catch the water. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind the doing of these simple acts by the Parish Council, but he was bound to point out that none of them could be done without interfering with the rights of someone, and rights could hardly be touched in this way without the payment of money. It surely was inconsistent to expect a Parish Council to do what was required and not to empower them to incur the necessary expense.

SIR R. PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that there was no such thing as a water supply which did not belong to somebody, and, therefore, if the Parish Council had no power to come to an agreement it would be unable to do anything at all. Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain what good the clause was as framed?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I have already fully explained the matter. I think the Government may be trusted not to evince any desire unnecessarily to restrict the powers of Parish Councils. We fully recognise that before the Parish Council can do anything there must be an agreement with the owner of a water supply, but we think it undesirable to insert these words in the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. T. FRY (Darlington)

said, he desired to make the clause still more clear by inserting words to provide that the rights of a Water Company should not be interfered with so long as it was fulfilling its Parliamentary obligations. The Amendment was approved by an influential Association formed for the protection of the interests of Provincial Water Companies, and he thought it was one well calculated to safeguard those interests.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, After the word "person," to insert the words, "And subject to such restriction as is by Section 52 of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' imposed on a Local Authority."—(Mr. T. Fry.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do not think these words are necessary, for we have sufficiently protected the companies.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)

said, the object of the Amendment which stood in his name was to make the village pump really free, and to prevent the Parish Council constituting itself in any way whatever an authority for the sale of water.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

There is no intention of allowing the Parish Council to levy a water rate.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 4, at end, insert "without making any charge therefor."—(Mr. Perks.)

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

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

said, he hoped no such limit would be placed on the action of the Parish Council. There might be cases in which it would be possible for a small sum to acquire a good water supply, and surely the Parish Council ought to have the means of defraying such an outlay.

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

said, he too thought the Parish Council should have power to make a charge to defray any expenses it might incur.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The intention of the Government is that the Parish Council shall not levy water rates.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR R. PAGET

said, he wished, in the absence of the hon. Member for the Kingston Division of Surrey, to move the omission of Sub-section (e), which gave power to deal with any pond, pool, open ditch, drain, or place containing, or used for the collection of, any drainage, filth, stagnant water, or matter likely to be prejudicial to health. He was very much afraid that this provision would give rise to inconvenience and friction by enabling one authority to interfere with the work of another. Section 91 of the Public Health Act entrusted the duty of dealing with the matters mentioned in the subsection to the Rural Sanitary Authority, and would it not be better, instead of the words adopted by the Government, to adopt the phraseology of that Act? They did not want to have two authorities engaged in doing the same work.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (e).—(Sir R. Paget.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The object of this sub-section is to enable the Parish Council to deal promptly with trifling nuisances which might exist in the parish; with small matters, which it would be difficult to get the Rural Sanitary Authority to deal with. It is not a very large power, and I do not believe it would create any conflict of jurisdiction. It would, on the contrary, prove a cheap and effective mode of at once abating petty nuisances.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, they did not want complications or difficulties to arise between two authorities, neither did they wish two bodies to deal with exactly the same subjects. He agreed with his hon. Friend that it would be better to take the words of the Public Health Act, the definition of which was much more clear.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We want to avoid in any way interfering with the jurisdiction of the Rural Sanitary Authority. If these small nuisances are left to be dealt with by that authority it would have to send down an Inspector, notices would require to be served, and the matter might have to be laid before the Justices and an order to abate obtained from them. We want to get rid of all that complicated and expensive machinery and let the Parish Council deal with small matters, such as the filling in of a ditch. By all means do not touch the jurisdiction of the Rural Sanitary Authority, but do let the Parish Council get rid of temporary and casual nuisances.

SIR R. PAGET

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had misapprehended the object of the Amendment. They did not want to prevent the Parish Council dealing with these small nuisances; all they wanted was to make the statute clear, and prevent any chance of the Rural Sanitary Authority and the Parish Council doing one and the same thing.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I think if we take the course suggested by my hon. Friend, and embody in this clause the words he suggests from the Public Health Act, we shall only create opportunities for friction and litigation.

SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he saw no power in the clause under which the Parish Council could enforce its order for the abatement of a nuisance.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That is the very essence of our position. We do not want in such cases the complicated machinery for making and enforcing orders.

SIR F. S. POWELL

said, it seemed to him to be necessary that some machinery should be provided. They ought, for instance, to ensure that industries were not vexatiously interfered with.

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

considered that the words of his hon. Friend's Amendment invited the Parish Council to enter on private property in the matter of assessment, and things of that sort. He, therefore, preferred the words of the Government.

MR. DODD

thought the President of the Local Government Board would help them, if he would tell them exactly what the words "deal with" meant. It was uncertain whether they meant the right to go on the land of a. person or not. The Committee did not intend to give the right to go on to private property, and the question was whether they should not say so, otherwise there might be litigation. He suggested that words might be inserted which would make it perfectly certain that "deal with" was not intended to give any right to go on to private property.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, unless they were dealing with what was known as "no man's land," which one did see rare instances of, the matter was scarcely worth considering in a Bill like this. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was in error in saying there might be a pond or open ditch, or some kind of nuisance for which nobody was responsible. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: Nobody to put the law in force.] They always understood there was an Inspector of Nuisances. If there was no such person, and if there was a difficulty in bringing proceedings in respect of a nuisance, which was a danger to the health of the public, then the sooner the whole power which regulated the sanitary arrangements of the rural districts was placed on a different footing the better. What they should avoid was the creation of any conflict of jurisdiction. If they were to give Parish Councils sanitary jurisdiction, let them say so at once; but if they entrusted these sanitary regulations to others, he did not think they should be fettered by the competing jurisdiction of irresponsible Parochial Authorities.

MR. HANBURY

suggested the addition to the Amendment of the words "in any highway or public place." The hon. Gentleman clearly did not wish this right to apply to private property. It would not do to give the Parish Councils these powers, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept an Amendment in this direction.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he supposed they were to understand from the President of the Local Government Board that this was merely a permissive clause, and that nothing could be done unless with consent. If that was the meaning it ought to be stated. If, on the other hand, there were powers to take legal proceedings they ought to be stated. The Parish Council might order a man to remove a nuisance and on his declining might get it done themselves and take proceedings which would run them into difficulties. As the provision stood at present nobody could tell its meaning, and it ought to be clearly stated whether the Parish Council had any legal powers.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do not propose to give any compulsory powers; I do not propose to give, what I may call, any sanitary jurisdiction, but what I propose to give is the power to deal with a nuisance, not by ordering it to be removed but by draining, cleansing, covering it, or otherwise preventing it from being prejudicial to health. It is an existing nuisance they are to have the power to deal with. I quite admit that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman should be cleared up, and I think the best way to deal with it would be to insert after "interfering with," the words "any private right or." If the Committee will accept that I will at once put these words in.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment (Mr. H. H. Fowler), as amended, agreed to.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet) moved to omit Sub-section (f), To acquire any right of way, easement, or other right, whether within or without their parish, the acquisition of which is beneficial to any inhabitants of the parish, and. The point he wished to raise was a different one from that involved in some of the other Amendments which followed his, and therefore he did not wish to stand in the way of hon. Gentlemen in anything he was about to say. What he wished to ask the Committee was whether it was desirable in this Bill to give power to deal with, in any shape or form, rights of way, easements, or other rights which might be attacked. He dared say many Members of the Committee like himself had had occasion to deal with these questions both as interested parties and also judicially as Magistrates carrying out the provisions of the Statute. He could see no earthly reason for the Parochial Authorities being charged with any responsibility in connection with footpaths except so far as it might be necessary for the Parish meeting or the Parish Council to assume functions which, under existing Statutes, belonged to the Vestry. He understood that for all practical purposes the Parish Council or the parish meeting occupied the position which the Vestry hitherto had occupied. and that any power or initiative which formerly devolved upon the Vestry was now, under the Bill, placed in the hands of the parish meeting or Parish Council. What did the right hon. Gentleman propose in this sub-section? He was afraid it was not free from that ambiguity which had characterised so many of its predecessors. Nobody seemed to know what was meant by the sub-section, or what object the Government were aiming at, and even among his learned Friends who had great experience in the administration of the law, as well as in the construction of Statutes, the widest misapprehension prevailed as to what powers were conferred by this sub-section. What was intended by the right to acquire any right of way? He had heard it said that it might be held to include a right actually to create a right of way. That, he thought, would be almost too absurd, but he feared that those Members of this House who expressed dread upon that subject would share the opinion which a great many who were not experts in the law would also be disposed to entertain. He thought anybody who had read the construction of the Act would know perfectly well that by acquiring a right of way it must be already an existing right of way.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he was going to accept an Amendment on this subject. There was no creating a right of way unless the person owning the land agreed with the Council.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, what he objected to was to pressure being brought to bear on the Local Authority to embark into purchase or enter into agreement with the owners of the land with a view to opening up paths or rights of way which the owners were perfectly well able to do without the intervention of Parliament. In the past rights of way were protected and safeguarded by the most minute precautionary provisions in various Statutes. These precautions were very elaborate. Before any interference could take place with an existing right of way what would be a parish meeting was to be held; application had to be made to the Surveyor of Highways, who had to apply to the Church wardens, for the summoning of a Vestry meeting. That, of course, under this Bill would be the parish meeting. The path which it was proposed to divert or alter had to be inspected by two Justices of the Peace, who had to give their certificate, and the Act of Parliament prescribed with great minuteness that the certificate should state that the substituted path was either nearer or more commodious or convenient. The rights of the public were most jealously guarded by the existing Statute, and no person could interfere with the existing right appertaining to all Her Majesty's subjects without all these precautions being observed, and every opportunity being afforded to every person interested to offer opposition. The publication on four successive Sundays upon the church door was to follow the issue of the certificate by the Justices of the Peace, which enabled any person—who need not necessarily be a ratepayer—who entertained objection to the diversion or alteration suggested, to avail himself of his legal remedy; and when, in the course of time, after publication in the newspapers of the district, as well as publication on the church doors, it became an order available for consideration before the Quarter Sessions, there was then a further period after the publication of the order of the Quarter Sessions, during which appeal could be laid. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman could not deny that the law, as at present constituted, afforded the utmost protection for public rights, and did not enable them to be over-ridden, even by the most grasping and unreasonable person, without the fullest opportunity being afforded to every inhabitant, not only of the parish, but of the district around, to enter a protest and see justice done. What did the President of the Local Government Board propose to do by this clause? As far as he could see, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give the right, first of all, of acquiring power as to a right of way if it existed. What, in the name of fortune, was the object of acquiring what existed already? If it was to create an absolutely new right, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was embarking on a very dangerous ground. The greatest jealousy existed as to the stopping up of paths or highways, or the creation of any rights which might interfere with the privacy appertaining to dwellings or private property. This clause would have a tendency to promote the acquisition of non-existent so-called rights of way. That was to say, what was not an existing right of way could be converted into one under this clause. Under these vague words, what was not a right of way now could be acquired by the Parish Authorities, and converted into a right or way. That was trenching on extremely dangerous ground. They were told that this was not compulsory, but only by agreement. He had a vague suspicion that, perhaps at some advanced hour in the morning, in some future Session, a short Act of a few lines might be passed to say where the word "may" occurred in any Statute of this kind, the word "shall" should be hereafter read. Therefore, he had a suspicion that if the words in this clause were inserted on the pretext that for the moment they were only permissive and did not involve the exercise of compulsory power, such power of compulsion would be subsequently obtained. He could not see the slightest ground for the addition of the words of this sub-section. There was ample provision as the law now stood for the protection of all legitimate rights, and the interposition of a new authority with the creation of fresh obligations would be a dangerous course for them to embark upon. He begged to move the omission of the sub-section.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section (f.)—(Mr. J. Lowther.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar)

thought that the hon. Gentleman was under some misconception as to the use of the word "acquire." They had already passed a clause in which the word occurred twice, and it was found not only in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, but in other Statutes. To acquire certainly did not mean to create. To acquire meant to get. As his right hon. Friend had already said, they did not give compulsory powers, but power to acquire, by agreement, any right of way. Until a right of way was acquired, and acquired by agreement, it had no existence; but when it was acquired, it sprang into existence.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

considered that, as the acquisition of the rights of way was to be by agreement only, the proposal of the Government would be perfectly harmless, and he hoped on that understanding they might not be called upon to discuss it.

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

said, that there was nothing more fruitful of disputes in the country than matters of rights of way; and when the Solicitor General said they could acquire a right of way, like acquiring buildings or land, it was a very different way of using the word. They acquired the former by buying them; they acquired a right of way by using it.

SIR J. RIGBY (interposing)

said, the public, it should be remembered, could not acquire a right of way otherwise than by dedication. An individual, of course, might acquire a right of way by "user," and with right of way so acquired the Bill had nothing whatever to do.

MR. JEFFREYS

said, the Committee of the Ordnance Survey on this subject, in their Report, stated that some footpaths were shown on the Ordnance Survey map which were in no true sense footpaths at all, and not even permanent. Frequently footpaths made by shepherds-going to or from sheep in a field during the time the surveyors were on the ground were put down on the map, whilst regular footpaths were often not marked at all. He objected to power being given to the Parish Councils to protect footpaths which were only imaginary. He agreed that real rights of way should be protected, and if it was made clear that this was only to protect real rights of way he should not object. If it meant they could acquire supposed rights of way such a power would be injurious to all occupiers of land, and he should be against it.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol had said that this might be a harmless clause—that was to say, the parish would have no power to acquire rights of way except by agreement. So far as the owners were concerned, it was harmless; but he objected on the ground of expense, because in Sub-section (i) were the words— To contribute towards the expense of doing any of the things above-mentioned. A large amount of money might be expended under this sub-section, because it not only dealt with a right of way within a parish, but it gave a wide range to a parish which might go and acquire rights of way all over the country—both within and without the parish. He thought, if the right hon. Gentleman would omit the words "without the parish," there could be little objection to the clause, but with those words in it would leave opportunities for incurring expense.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he would point out that there were provisions in the Bill for dealing with existing public rights of way, and he thought existing rights of way should be protected. The words "outside the parish" were most objectionable in the clause, for it seemed to him that they held out an invitation to the Parish Council to acquire, or create, rights outside the parish boundary. He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could not hold out some hope of omitting these words? It appeared to him that the word "acquire" was to be read as "create." When a new right of way was made by agreement, whose was it to be? If it was to belong to the parish alone, it would not be a public right of way. Then if the Parish Council was to secure a public right of way for the 38,000,000 inhabitants of these islands, why should the parish alone pay for it? He thought all those who enjoyed a public right of way should pay for it. He quite agreed that power should be given to protect existing rights of way; but he objected to the power being given to create new rights in this way, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would be able to give them an assurance upon the point.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said, he feared the operation of the section would lead to serious litigation and trouble for the Parish Council. They would have to create new powers, and, having once created them, they would have to maintain them. He did not think it was necessary to include such powers in the Bill, since the effect would be to bring the Parish Council into difficulties hereafter.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, he would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was sure as to the effect of Sub-section 2, Clause 9, dealing with acquisitions of land? Was it understood that it would not apply to rights of way?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, it was not intended to apply.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he presumed he might take it from the right hon. Gentleman that Sub-section 2 of Clause 9—which opened up very dangerous machinery, by means of which the power of voluntary arrangements under other clauses might be overridden —would not apply to acquisitions under the present sub-section. He could conceive circumstances when strong local pressure could be brought to bear on County Councils. If the Government gave them the assurance that the provisions in Clause 9 did not interfere in the manner he suggested he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

asked whether they were to understand that the words "by agreement" would be included?

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

said, he would withdraw the Amendment which stood next in his name.

MR. H. H. FOWLER moved— In page 6, line 30, to insert the words "by agreement.

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

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he would move to insert the words "by dedication."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar)

said, the only way they could "acquire" was by dedication, and he did not think, therefore, that the words were necessary.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he would like to know whether the words "by agreement" were to be repeated in other parts of the clause, or were they to understand that they were to be taken as implied?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.)

said, the Amendment standing in his name— In page 6, line 30, to leave out the words "or other right, was covered by that of the President of the Local Government Board.

MR. H. H. FOWLER moved— In page 6, line 30, to leave out the words "easement or other right. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Question put, and negatived.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, he had the following Amendment on the Paper:— In page 6, line 31, to leave out the word "whether. He would not move this Amendment, however. He would move that standing next in his name, which was— In page 6, line 31, to leave out the words "or without. He thought each parish should be limited to the rights of way within itself. Otherwise, there would be an inducement to litigation and strife with adjoining parishes.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 31, to leave out the words "or without."—(Mr. Lees Knowles.)

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

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND, York, W.R., Rotherham)

said, seeing that the Parish Council would be already strictly limited in their expenditure, it was very unlikely they would go to any large expense in seeking to acquire rights of way beyond their own boundaries. The object of the words in the clause was quite clear. If the power of the Parish Council were limited absolutely as proposed, there might be cases in which the limitation would defeat the object of the framers of the Bill.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

said, he agreed that this was one of those dangerous provisions which it was undesirable to have in the Bill. It was very undesirable to give one parish any authority to interfere with the areas of an adjoining parish. But if it was unlikely that such power would be used, what was the use of including it in the Bill at all? Only the other day they were told that they could not legislate for exceptional circumstances, but that was what they were doing by putting in such a provision. The Parish Councils, he thought, would soon find a way of making arrangements one with another where necessity arose. The power proposed to be given was an objectionable one, and he would press upon the right hon. Gentleman that it should be left out altogether.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, the right hon. Gentleman proposed that one parish should have a right to create or acquire a right of way in another—

MR. ACLAND

By agreement.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, they could not rush through a proposal of that sort. The clause would give over the power of acquiring rights of way and rights over land in one parish to the Council of another parish. This would be ousting that other parish. But the Bill, he understood, was to increase, not to diminish, the power of the parishioners. It seemed to him that they would certainly be diminishing the power of the parishioners by giving this authority to the adjoining parish. The action of the Parish Council should be confined to the parish by which it was elected.

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

said, he would suggest that after the word "parish" they should insert "or adjoining parish." That, he thought, would meet the point raised by the Vice President.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, there might be a case of right of way to a railway station. Supposing there was a field of land between one parish and the station, and the inhabitants of the parish wished to acquire the right of way, and the inhabitants of the other parish were not interested, since they could approach the station from the other side—in that case the arrangement would not be with the other parish, but with the landlord. That was the class of arrangement that the Government contemplated.

MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

said, the words "acquire, by agreement, any right of way," were redundant, and it did not matter whether they were in the clause or not.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, he would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol would be accepted.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. H. H. FOWLER moved— In page 6, after the word "parish," to insert the words "or adjoining parish.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, he would not move the Amendment standing next on the Paper in his name:— In page 6, line 31, to leave out the word "acquisition," and insert the word "protection. He wished, however, by permission, to move the next Amendment, on behalf of the hon. Member for the Ashford Division of Kent (Mr. L. Hardy)— In page 6, line 32, to leave out the word "any," and insert the word "the. The Parish Council was to be for the good of the whole parish, and it was to make it clear that the rights of way would be for the general purposes of the parish, and that the power would not be exercised for the convenience of an influential section that the Amendment was brought forward.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 32, to leave out the word "any," and insert the word "the."—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, there might be a group of houses in a particular part of a parish in respect of the convenience of the inhabitants of which the power of right of way might have to be exercised. They wished the power to be beneficial to the whole parish; the Parish Council must be satisfied upon that point: they must consider it would be to the advantage of the people of the locality that the specific right should be acquired. He did not think they could accept the Amendment.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, he did not want to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper— In page 6, after line 32,to insert,—"(g) to plant trees or shrubs in any roads or open spaces under the control of the Council, and to provide seats in such open spaces. He did not propose to move the Amendment.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, he would like to move the insertion of the words standing in the name of the hon. Member. These words would cover the question of roads. Sub-section (c) of that clause only referred to recreation grounds, village greens, open spaces, and public walks. It did not refer to roads; and he did not think the Improvements Act gave any power to improve roads. It would be most desirable if the Parish Council did have power to deal with roads. He moved— In page 6, line 32, to insert,—"(g) to plant trees or shrubs in any road or open spaces under the control of the Council, and to provide seats in such open spaces. Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, there were District and County Authorities already for roads. They had, however, given the Parish Council power, under sub-section (c) of this clause, to put in force Clause 164of the Public Health Act in regard to recreation grounds and public walks, and they were to have power under the same sub-section to deal with open spaces.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Hereford)

said, that was already in existence.

MR. PERKS

said, they had power to provide seats in open spaces.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE

said, the Vestries had those powers already.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, as the Amendment would very much overload the Bill, he thought it might be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WICKHAM (Hants, Petersfield) moved— In page 6, line 34, to leave out the words "any inhabitants of. He said that, as the sub-section stood, the Parish Council would have power to accept and hold any gifts of property, real or personal, for the benefit of any inhabitants of the parish. He held that they should only hold gifts on behalf of the parish and not any section, small or large, of the inhabitants.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 34, to leave out the words " any inhabitants of."—(Mr. Wickham.)

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

MR. ACLAND

said, there were cases where it would be necessary to have the words "any inhabitants of," as, for instance, in cases where the deaf and dumb and the blind were concerned. He was disposed to think the hon. Member's fear of the Council holding gifts of property generally would not be realised.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, surely a gift for the deaf, the dumb, and the blind would come under the definition of "charity." [Mr. ACLAND: No.] If that were not so he would sit down, as he evidently had entirely ceased to know what "charity" meant.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, if the gift was beneficial to the parish, the Parish Council ought to have power to receive it on behalf of the parish.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, they could not accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. DARLING

said, he wished to move at the end of Sub-section (b)— Pull down and remove any erection for the purpose of advertising which may be disfiguring to the landscape, and also to remove any barbed wire erected without the vicinity of any dwelling house; and. They were all agreed that it was well that means should be taken to prevent the country being disfigured by the erection of advertisements—he would not mention the kind of advertisements to which he referred, as that would be giving the advertisers the best kind of publicity. Everyone knew the advertisements which the people who lived in the rural districts would desire to have removed, and it would be worthy of a Liberal Government to give the Parish Councils power to remove them. In the next place, the country was being made dangerous to anyone who did not keep to the footpaths—and, of course, everybody wished, now and then, to stray from them—by the use of barbed wire fences in all sorts of inconvenient places. He should imagine that there was no one who would be more likely to use judiciously the right to pull down barbed wire than the agricultural labourers who would compose the Parish Council.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 37, after the word "and," to insert the words, "pull down and remove any erection for the purpose of advertising which may be disfiguring to the landscape, and also to remove any barbed wire erected without the vicinity of any dwelling house; and."—(Mr. Darling.)

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

Ms. H. H. FOWLER

said, that if he accepted these words he should expect to be subjected to some very severe criticism. It would be said of him that he was desirous of holding the Parish Councils up to ridicule. This was an advertising age. What right had they to say to a man that he should not let his land for a purpose which would bring him some profit. These were hard times in the agricultural districts, and if the hon. Member for South Essex were in his place he was sure he would indignantly repudiate any attempt to interfere with the profitable use of land.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

said, the hon. Member for Peterborough had carried through a Bill dealing with barbed wire, but it only affected barbed wire by the side of highways. The barbed wire in country districts was extremely inconvenient and even dangerous to children.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that the Bill as brought in by the hon. Member for Peterborough had referred to barbed wire by the side of highways, but in the House of Lords it had been re-drawn and put in shape in the general interest of the community. The House of Commons accepted what had been done, and passed the Bill in the amended form.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he thought the Amendment unnecessary, because—and, the Solicitor General would correct him if he was wrong—there was a Common Law right to proceed against any person who injured you with barbed wire if it was in an improper place.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR R. PAGET

said, that Sub-section (i) read as follows:— To contribute towards the expense of doing any of the things above mentioned. He was afraid the words "any of the things above mentioned," would include everything in the clause, and if that were so they would have a very wide signification. The words "to contribute towards the expense," should relate solely to parish property; therefore, they should add such words as "in relation to such property." Would the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board accept such words?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Committee had already sanctioned words which would enable the Parish Council to do certain things at its own expense, and the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Dodd) proposed presently to bring forward an Amendment which would enable a Council to combine with another Council in such matters. There might be something that it was desirable to undertake which would cost £10, and a Council might say, "We will contribute £5 towards the expense," and a private individual might be prepared to contribute the other £5. The words as they stood would enable this to be done. The idea was not to increase expense, but to diminish it.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Baronet move?

SIR R. PAGET

Yes.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 39, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "in relation to such property."—(Sir R. Paget.)

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

SIR R. PAGET

said, that if the power of contributing were to extend to everything in the clause, a great deal of work which ought to be done by private owners would be done by the Parish Council—work, for instance, in connection with ponds, pools, and drains. Again, in connection with rights of way, stiles, footbridges, and various other things might be necessary as works of maintenance which ought to be carried by the private owners, and under the clause as worded the Parish Council might be induced to contribute to the expense. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had quite seen this.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I quite see the hon. Baronet's meaning.

SIR R. PAGET

said, there were no words in the clause to say who was to bear the expense, even of works of maintenance which should be carried out by private owners. He had no objection to the expenditure of public funds in rela- tion to parish property; but he could not think it right to spend those funds on private property.

MR. HANBURY

said, it was understood yesterday, when they were discussing an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, that the Parish Council would have no power to spend money under these sub-sections.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that the hon. Member was under a great delusion if he thought that the Parish Council had not power to do all these things mentioned in the clause. They could acquire buildings at their own expense, but under Sub-section (i) they would be able to diminish the expenditure by combination with someone else. A man might come to them and say—"Such and such a work should be done, but I am not prepared to do it myself, the cost being £5." Under this sub-section the Parish Council would be able to say— "We will give you £2 towards it." That, in the opinion of the Government and their advisers, was the meaning of the sub-section. Later on he intended to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Essex, to enable one parish to join another in doing these things. If they did not allow this system of contribution wherever these works were necessary the Parish Council would have to bear the expense itself.

SIR R. PAGET

said, he did not object to the power of contribution, but what he did object to was the exercise of that power in connection with other than parish property.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. DODD

said, he desired to move to add to Sub-section (i)— or agree or combine with any other Parish Council to do or contribute towards the expense of doing any of the things above mentioned. He was glad to hear, from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that the Government intended to accept the Amendment. The Committee would see that there were a number of matters in this section of the Bill which could be conveniently done by two or more parishes in combination which one parish would not be able to do itself.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 39, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "or agree or com- bine with any other Parish Council to do or contribute towards the expense of doing any of the things above mentioned."—(Mr. Dodd.)

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

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

said, he would move an Amendment to enable the Parish Council— To regulate the use of common pastures and to fix the number of cattle, sheep, horses, or other grazing animals which each parishioner having rights of common may turn out on the common pasture. The Amendment dealt with a small matter which he thought the Parish Council quite competent to deal with. The suggestion came to him from his own experience. In the case of a common with which he was familiar there were a certain number of occupiers who had rights of common—and these commoners, by the way, would neither be increased nor diminished by the Amendment. Formerly, the commoners were able to agree together as to the number of sheep and other animals they should send on the common. Some years back they ceased to agree, the result being that any number of animals were sent on to the common, until, at the present time, there was scarcely anything in the shape of pasturage left. He knew of other cases where a similar state of things prevailed. Under his Amendment the Local Authority would be able to step in where the commoners disagreed and decide as to how many sheep or cattle should be placed on these commons. No doubt, on arriving at a decision, they would be guided by the ancient custom.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 39. after the word "abovementioned," to insert,—"(j) To regulate the use of common pastures and to fix the number of cattle, sheep, horses, or other grazing animals which each parishioner having rights of common may turn out on the common pasture."— (Mr. Picton.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he appreciated the motives of his hon. Friend, who no doubt had made out a substantial grievance which ought to be remedied. But he (Mr. Fowler) did not think his hon. Friend had clearly shown that the Parish Council would hardly be the proper authority to deal with manorial rights which might extend to two or more parishes. If any Local Authority should be constituted a tribunal for dealing with these matters—and he did not suggest that it should—it should be the District Council. There would be cases, no doubt, where the parish and the common would not be coterminous, and there would, therefore, be a conflict of jurisdiction between different parishes. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Hereford)

said, he thought the Parish Council might well be the authority to deal with this subject, seeing that it was to be vested with powers under the Allotments Act.

MR. HANBURY

said, that if the Amendment were accepted it would operate very hardly in many cases with which he was acquainted. On certain commons in his neighbourhood what were called "gates" were bought and sold, and each commoner knew exactly how much stock he could place on the common. It would be unfair to give a Parish Council the right to interfere with a person and to say that he should not put on the land more than half the stock he was entitled to put on under his purchase.

MR. PICTON

said, that in cases where there was an agreement as to the amount of stock which should be put on a common, the commoners would not be interfered with. The Amendment would apply in cases where no such agreement could be arrived at. However, he would not press the proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WARNER

said, he wished to move an Amendment to provide that a Parish Council should have power to take legal action for the protection of the rights of the parish or of its inhabitants as such. They had given the Parish Councils powers, but no authority to defend them. They had given them authority over commons, but no right, if anyone encroached, to take action in the matter. The whole point of this Amendment referred to the inhabitants of a parish as such. He would give three or four instances to show the kind of rights he meant. The inhabitants of Tottenham had a right to graze cattle on Lea Marshes. That was one sort of right. Then, the parishioners of Loughton, in Essex, had a right to cut wood in Epping Forest, and on giving it up they received a considerable compensation. Walton, a small parish in Somersetshire, had the right of using a common which the lord of the manor tried to encroach upon and enclose. The parishioners fought him and maintained their rights. All these rights had been protected and held by outside individuals, partly helped and sustained by voluntary contributions no doubt. In small parishes there were few people who would care to defend these rights, and in the past many rights had been lost. Seeing that Parish Councils were to be established, he thought that the power to defend local common rights should be entrusted to them. He would quote one more case, which was an important one. The making of the Great Western Railway in Somersetshire cut off the water supply of Saltford. The company agreed to give another supply, but many of the houses had been left short of water, and many people were suffering in consequence. There was no one to take action against the Railway Company. If the Parish Councils had these powers it would prove a great boon to many small parishes.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 39, at end, to insert,—"(j) to take legal action for the protection of the rights of the parish or of its inhabitants as such."— (Mr. Warner.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he was afraid that in many respects the hon. Member had not quite considered the scope of his Amendment. In some cases it would be unnecessary, and, where it was not unnecessary, it was undesirable. The Parish Council, if it entered into contracts with people, would have the same rights as ordinary individuals in moving for the protection of those rights. If their property was in any way attacked, they would have the same rights as ordinary individuals to resist that attack. The law already provided for anything beyond this in a very simple manner. It enabled a person to apply to the Attorney General for a fiat, and if there was anything of a case the Attorney General gave one. The Attorney General should have the con- trol he now exercised in the matter. The Amendment would enable any Parish Council to enter into litigation which might be of a doubtful character, and he did not think that would be an advantage, but a disadvantage. The process by which a fiat was obtained was a very simple one.

MR. WARNER

asked if the Village Council would be able to take action in these cases?

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

How many lawsuits will a Parish Council be able to embark in with an income of £2 10s.?

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that in Clause 25 there was a special power given to the Parish Council to take action in rights of way cases. The Solicitor General had said that the objection to giving the Parish Council general power to initiate litigation was that they might do so in doubtful cases. What cases could be more doubtful than those concerning rights of way?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The hon. Member refers to the District Council, not the Parish Council.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

The principle is the same.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE

said, he wished to move to add, after "mentioned" in Sub-section (i)— Provided that the powers given by (a), (b), (f), (h), and (i) shall not be exercised without the previous consent of the parish meeting. In this clause they had given large powers to the Parish Council to acquire buildings, to buy land, and to execute works of maintenance and improvement, and what he desired in moving the Amendment was that before the Council embarked in a large expenditure of this kind the assent of a parish meeting should be obtained. The Parish Council would be a small and, at any rate at first, a wholly untried body, and he certainly thought that before they incurred any expenditure of magnitude they should be required to obtain the sanction of the parochial electors. A small majority of a Parish Council might decide on carrying out an important public work, but on further consideration, and after the holding of a parish meeting, they might see reason to change their opinion. He brought forward this Amendment as a check upon precipitate action, and in no spirit of hostility to the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 39, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, —"Provided that the powers given by (a), (b), (f), (h), and (i) shall not be exercised without the previous consent of the parish meeting."—(Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I think that this would be a very undesirable limitation of the action of the Parish Council. Practically it would destroy the Parish Council, because the Council would have no independent action and no freedom of administration, if everything it said or did had to be submitted to its constituents week by week or mouth by month. We have already provided in the Bill that the Council shall borrow no money without the consent of the parish meeting, and that it shall not spend more than 1d. in the £1 without such consent. If a Parish Council cannot be trusted to spend up to 1d. in the £1, you had better not have one at all.

MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE

pointed out that arrangements might be made and contracts entered into to carry out large works, and the question whether the 1d. rate was likely to be exceeded might not come up for consideration at all until it was too late to draw back.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said, the President of the Local Government Board appeared to have failed to take notice of the fact that the Borough Funds Act gave exactly the same kind of control over Municipal Corporations with respect to many undertakings as was proposed to be given by the Amendment over the Parish Council. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER expressed dissent.] Many of the powers given to the Parish Councils involved a proportionately larger outlay, or at all events as great an inroad upon local resources as did the Borough Funds Act in towns.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Hereford)

thought the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had treated the Committee rather curtly in this matter. It was desired by means of this Bill to interest the people of the parish in what was going on in the parish. The Bill would take away from them all such opportunity of considering and discussing anything that was to be done as they now had at the parish Vestry meeting, and the present Amendment aimed at restoring some of the powers which had thus been withdrawn. What could interest them more greatly than to know what buildings were going to be erected, what rights of way were going to be closed, what water supply was going to be utilised, and what other parish matters were going to be dealt with? If the labouring classes were to be interested in what was going on the villages, and if their institutions were to be revitalised, the people must be allowed to take an active personal part in the business of the parish. It was not proposed to take away from the Parish Councils the power of closing the things mentioned in the Bill, but simply to provide that those who elected the Parish Councils should have a voice in the matters with which those bodies dealt. One would suppose from the attitude assumed by the Government that they were afraid that the people of the villages would not endorse the action taken by their Councils. In many cases the Government insisted upon having the electors consulted. They would not allow the adoptive Acts to be adopted until the parishioners had expressed their views about them. That being so, surely it would be well to let the parishioners give their decision before the Council voted on other important matters in which the electors would take a deep interest. It was casting some slur on the intelligence of the working classes to refuse to allow them to have a voice in such matters. He strongly supported the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 223.—(Division List, No. 348.)

MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.) moved the insertion of the following sub-section:— A Parish Council for a parish which has a population of 1,000 and upwards shall also have such powers as an Urban Sanitary Authority under the Public Health Act, or any other Act as the County Council acting under a General Order of the Local Government Board may, on the application of such Parish Council and with or without a local inquiry, by order direct. He said, the Committee ought not to forget that some of the so-called rural parishes were of very considerable size, and it was absolutely necessary, if the system of rural government was to be made complete, that there should be some elasticity, and that the parishes which required urban powers should be able to get them without being obliged to become urban districts for all purposes, thereby incurring a great deal of unnecessary expense. In his own constituency there were no fewer than six small towns with populations varying from 1,000 to 3,000, which were simply in the eyes of the law rural parishes. Many of these places from time to time required certain urban powers which the smaller parishes round about them did not wish for. There were also places like Egham, in Surrey, with populations amounting to nearly 10,000, which were rural parishes, and which, unless this clause was amended, would only have the very small powers which the Bill gave to the least populous villages. The powers he referred to did not by any means involve expense. Some of them were merely powers to make bye-laws on certain sanitary matters as to the keeping of pigs and other animals, the cleaning of footways, the removal of horse-refuse, and so on. There were small watering places which needed powers to regulate pleasure boats and bathing, and some places needed to provide not very expensive articles, such as weighing machines for their markets and even public clocks. The President of the Local Government Board had resisted an Amendment authorising a Parish Council to provide a public clock, because he said it was unsuitable for a small village, but he really could not contend that it was unsuitable for a town of 5,000 inhabitants. His (Mr. Hobhouse's) proposal was that the Local Government Board should from time to time make General Orders as to the kind of urban powers which might be conferred on small towns of this character, and that the County Council should have power under such an Order to confer any of these powers which it thought desirable on rural towns, instead of making them into urban districts for all purposes. At present the only choice a County Council had was either to make a rural town of this kind into an urban district for all purposes or to leave it in the same condition as other rural parishes. There was a precedent for the present proposal. Under the 276th section of the Public Health Act the Local Government Board might either on the application of a Rural Sanitary Authority or on the application of a certain number of ratepayers declare urban provisions in force in any contributory place in an urban district. Now that a separate authority was being set up in each parish the Committee had an opportunity of vesting similar powers or such of them as might be desirable in the hands of the representatives of those parishes which desired them. It must be borne in mind that there were rural districts which were 10, 12, or even 20 miles long, and that it would not be very satisfactory to vest such powers, when they were only needed by a single parish, in the hands of a Rural Sanitary Authority representing all the parishes in the district. He ventured to think that, with the safeguards he had proposed, they would run no risks of undue expenditure, and they would avoid the unnecessary expenditure that had now been caused by the creation of all those small urban districts. Directly a town got a population of some 2,000—in the case of a watering place— it usually applied to be made into an urban district. He had put before the Committee what he believed was a very practical proposal for making the government in those small towns more satisfactory and less expensive than the present mode of converting them into rural districts, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would see his way to accepting the proposal.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 39, at end, to insert,—"A Parish Council for a parish which has a population of 1,000 and upwards shall also have such powers of an Urban Sanitary Authority under the Public Health Act, or any other Act as the County Council acting under a General Order of the Local Government Board may, on the application of such Parish Council and with or without a local inquiry, by order direct."— (Mr. H. Hobhouse.

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I quite agree with my hon. Friend that there are many districts which are nominally rural, but which for all practical purposes are, and ought to be, urban. As I understand, under the existing laws, a Rural Sanitary Authority may be invested, by the Orders of the Local Government Board, with urban powers, but it does not mean that the whole of the rural sanitary district must be vested with urban powers. Under Clause 57 of the Local Government Act of 1888 the County Council has the power to convert any district or any part thereof, which is a rural district, into an urban district, and, if it is an urban district, into a rural district, and those two powers together seem to us to do all that is reasonable. I think we should create confusion if we made these Parish Councils Rural Sanitary Authorities. That is the dividing line which I have tried to adhere to all through this Bill — that the Parish Council shall not be a Rural Sanitary Authority. I think by the combination of these various modes we should meet the hon. Member's view. In any case, I do not think this is the time or part of the Bill at which what the hon. Member proposes should be done, and I hope he will not press the Amendment here.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, he thought towns in watering places, which had been alluded to by the hon. Member, might fairly ask to be made into an urban district. In the case of a place like Solihill, with, perhaps, about 1,000 people, instead of creating confusion, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would get himself out of a great difficulty by adopting the suggestion. These places had already adopted certain Acts, such as the Watching and Lighting Acts. A parish meeting that managed the lighting and watching would be the very body to entrust with the extra powers under the Sanitary Acts, which it was proposed to give them. Then they would have a rural parish with certain sanitary powers approved by the County Council, and it would relieve the right hon. Gentleman from the difficulty he was now in as to the management of the powers those places already had. A small rural town could not get the best men; but if they gave them certain powers under the Public Health Act suitable to the case, approved by the County Council, they would have a body which would be likely to attract better men.

MR. MALLOCK (Devon, Torquay)

said, it was quite true what the right hon. Gentleman said, that very large urban powers could now be granted to the Rural Sanitary Authorities or to the District Councils, when they were established, but that was not what he understood his hon. Friend opposite wanted. They wanted those powers to be granted to the parishes themselves. They would be on the spot, and would be able to manage their own affairs much better than a District Council sitting at a distance. That District Council often represented chiefly the rural parts of the district, and, therefore, took no interest in the towns. He thought this would be a most convenient power to give the County Council.

SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, his sympathies were entirely with his hon. Friend. He felt, however, that the clause as it stood would be somewhat difficult. He was afraid there might be some conflict of authority between the Parish Councils and the future District Councils.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, the right hon. Gentleman had met him by saying that this was not the time or place for such an Amendment. He would like to ask when was the time and where was the place? He had moved an Amendment, because small towns in which he was interested himself desired to obtain certain additional urban powers. To give an example, he had been asked more than once whether there ought not to be some power in a small town for restricting the keeping of pigs. The only way that power could be obtained was through the Board of Guardians or the Rural Sanitary Authority, and people had to go some miles away to the Rural Sanitary Authority, which was chiefly composed of farmers, who saw no harm in keeping pigs anywhere. The Rural Sanitary Authority was not the authority to apply to, and they ought not to be the authority to exercise the powers. The right hon. Gentleman had said a town might be made into an urban district, but he contended that the multiplication of these small urban districts was very objectionable. His object was to secure by some means that the villages or small towns should be invested with power to deal with minor sanitary matters themselves. He was not in the least wedded to the form of his own proposal, and if the right hon. Gentleman would only put such a power as that into the hands of the Local Government Board straight off he would accept it gladly. He had put forward his proposal in such a shape that it would enable the Local Government Board to have general control.

SIR C. W. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be acting wisely if he would promise to consider the Amendment as now suggested at a later stage of the Bill. There was certainly some ground for the suggestion, although he did not think the Committee were in possession of the full facts of the case so as to enable them to agree upon the form of words at the present moment. Urban powers at the present moment were granted by the Local Government Board to rural parishes, and they were granted to the Rural Sanitary Authority, and were exercised in the parish by a committee which had very limited powers. Those powers were generally granted not for what might be called sanitary purposes, but for new streets, or something of that sort. The hon. Member had now suggested that he was willing this power should be given to the Local Government Board. If the right hon. Gentleman would say that he would consider whether he could do that it would be a very wise and prudent proceeding.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I have said before that I quite sympathise with the object of the hon. Member for Somerset, but that I could not accept the Amendment, and I do not think it is the best way to deal with it, though I cannot say offhand what is the best way to deal with it. I think there is great necessity for largely extending powers in the direction suggested to all the Parish Councils, but it is not possible for me to deal with that matter now. The proper time to discuss the subject will be when we come to deal with the District Councils. I cannot accept the Amendment, but, without pledging myself to any particular course, I shall be willing to consider the question with the permanent officials of the Local Government Board in order to see how the suggestion of the hon. Member can be met without involving controversy.

SIR C. W. DILKE

There is power given to the District Councils to delegate powers.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I will look into the matter.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, that on this understanding he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 6, line 40, to leave out the words "sell, exchange, or.

MR. H. H. FOWLER moved— In page 6, line 40, after the word "let," to insert the words "or with the consent of the parish meeting sell or exchange.

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

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, the object of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman that had just passed was to bring this clause into conformity with Clause 10, which said a certain thing should not be done, except with the consent of the parish meeting, evidently with the idea that it was not right to trust the Parish Council to dispose in any sense permanently of parish property.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that was not so.

MR. HANBURY

said, the effect of it was to take out of the control of the Parish Council the dealing at all permanently with parish property, except with the consent of the parish meeting. He thought the letting ought to be limited for a fixed number of years, and he proposed that the Parish Council should not have power to let for more than seven years. With that object he moved the following:—After the word "let," to insert these words, "for any period not exceeding seven years."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, After the word "let," to insert the words "for any period not exceeding seven years."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I am in some difficulty as regards the wording. The clause as I propose to amend it will read in this way— A Parish Council may let, or with the consent of the parish meeting, sell or exchange any land or buildings vested in the Council, but the power of letting for more than a week, and the power of sale or exchange shall not be exercised in the case of property which has been acquired at the expense of any rate, or is at the passing of this Act applied in aid of any rate, or would but for want of income be so applied, without the consent of the Local Government Board.

MR. HANBURY

said, he wanted to extend the control of the parish meeting to the letting of land. He desired that the Parish Council should not let land for a longer period than seven years without the consent of the parish meeting.

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

said, he wished to know whether this power was to be restricted to the land acquired at the expense of the rate alone; to land which was acquired by any rate or the income of which was applied in aid of any rate? But' surely there was land which the parish held which had come to it in other ways besides acquisition out of a rate. There was land that parishes held that had been devised to them. The right hon. Gentleman would find a good deal of land that had been acquired in former days for objects that had ceased, such as for digging of gravel for the roads, parish workhouses, and other parish purposes. Why not say that any land of any parish should not be let except on these conditions? Then, more extraordinary still, the right hon. Gentleman proposed that no land should be let for more than a week without the consent of the Local Government Board. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must mean a year, and it must be an error in the printing. Then what necessity was there for going to the Local Government Board? and why not, in a case of letting for more than a year or the sale or exchange, go to the County Council, which would know all the circumstances of the case? He admitted there should be some restriction, and that a parish meeting alone should not be able to deal with the matter. However, his principal object was to obtain some explanation with regard to this clause, for, as amended by the right hon. Gentleman, it would read in anything but a satisfactory way.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We do not consider that the Parish Council should have the power to let parish property without some controling authority. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are hard to please in this matter. They do not seem to be satisfied with either the Local Government Board or the County Council. When I propose the County Council somebody suggests the Local Government Board, and when I propose the Local Government Board somebody suggests the County Council. As to the term "for more than a week" to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the case we had in view was the case of a parish which has a room available for concerts and lectures, the letting of which brings in a small income to the parish, and in that case we do not think the parish should be required to go to anyone to sanction such a letting. I may point out, too, that the control which we give to the Local Government Board over parish property is the control the Board now exercises not only over parish property but over municipal property. No Corporation can dispose of such property without the consent of the Local Government Board.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, the section referred to laud as well as to buildings, and it would be monstrous to require the sanction of the Local Government Board for the letting of small holdings for a longer term than one week.

SIR F. S. POWELL

said, as he understood the section, its object was to prevent the alienation of the property of the parish, and as such he would support it.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he failed to see the distinction drawn between the ordinary property of the parish and property arising out of the rates. In the case of ordinary property the Parish Council could deal with it subject only to the assent of the parish meeting; but property arising out of the rates or applied in aid of rates could only be dealt with on the consent of the Local Government Board. He did not see any reason for this distinction being drawn between the property of the parish.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

There is no such distinction. The Parish Council, undoubtedly, has power with the assent of the parish meeting to sell or exchange its ordinary property, but in the case of property obtained at the expense of the rates the assent of the Local Government Board is required.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, that surely the Government would not require that the letting of land applied to the reduction of the rates should be submitted to the Local Government Board He objected to the proposal about the seven years. The Parish Council ought to have the right to let land from year to year without applying for permission to anybody. If the Council wanted to let land for more than a year, then let them go to the Local Government Board or to the County Council; but the Council should not be prevented from letting farming land from week to week as they might desire.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 40, after the word "let," to insert the words "or with the consent of the parish meeting sell or exchange."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

^*MR. BYLES (York, W. E., Shipley) moved to omit from the Amendment the words "sell or," so that the Parish Council should have no power to sell laud vested in it. His object was to draw the attention of the Committee to the importance of the question of municipal holding of land. He desired that any community who became possessed of the precious commodity of land should not have the power to alienate it from its successors. In Bradford, which was under the Corporation Act, he had seen the Corporation buy many lots of valuable land, drive perhaps an important thoroughfare through the land, and then sell the frontages of the land to individual purchasers. He had seen those individual purchasers acquire great wealth out of the purchases which they made by the growth of the community where the land was situated. It always seemed to him that this increment of values should in equity have belonged to the community, and not to the individual. There was at this moment a movement in the Bradford Town Council to prevent the alienation of land which came into the possession of that Council. In the town of Scarborough he believed that a very large portion of land used to belong to the community, and in former days it was sold by the government of the town to prevent their levying rates upon the public. The result had been that the present population of Scarborough was divested of this property, which should have been its in- heritance. There was in Parliament and outside a very large and growing opinion in favour of municipal and national, and not individual, holding of land, and therefore he desired to divide the Committee on the subject.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "sell or."—(Mr. Byles.)

Question proposed, "That the words "sell or," stand part of the proposed Amendment.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, that he had never heard in the House a speech which had less to do with the subject under discussion than that of the hon. Member for Bradford, or which betrayed more complete ignorance of the matters with which the Bill was intended to deal. The hon. Member had discovered that land was a precious commodity. Undoubtedly it was in the places with which the hon. Member was acquainted— Bradford and Scarborough; but the Bill was one for the establishment of Councils in rural parishes; and if the hon. Member knew anything of rural parishes, he would know that land was not a precious commodity there. If he wanted any of it, there were many on the Opposition side of the House who would be glad to let him have it on easy terms. The hon. Member had taken up the time of the Committee and delayed the progress of the Bill by moving an Amendment which could not by any possibility have anything to do with the action of the Parish Councils. They would be very much too wise to saddle themselves with the acquisition of land in rural localities. The hon. Member displayed complete distrust in the bodies which the Bill would create. If the Parish Council were to become the possessor of land, the hon. Member proposed that they should never be able to divest themselves of it, however much they might wish to do so. A more ridiculous Amendment was never submitted.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, that hon. Members opposite were fond of professing a great admiration for the late Professor Fawcett, and he had heard Professor Fawcett maintain the same argument as his hon. Friend had just advanced, the protesting against the sale of land by any Public Authority, great or small. But they could not discuss a large question of that kind on this clause. The hon. Member for Bradford had lost his opportunity. The point should have been raised on Clause 6. Clause 8 only applied to possessions into which the Council might come under the Bill. He would suggest to his hon. Friend, having made his protest, that this was too small a matter to divide the Committee upon.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

My right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean has discovered a blot on this Amendment. We have already settled the question on Clause 6. The Amendment raises a very large and a very wide question which I am not disposed to enter on now, but I may say that about 30 years ago a friend of mine offered a charity to buy its land for as much money as would produce the same income if invested in Consols. The charity refused to part with their land on any terms, and now their income had dwindled by several hundreds of pounds.

MR. BYLES

said, that he would accept his right hon. Friend's advice and withdraw the Amendment. ["No, no."]

Question put, and agreed to.

Original Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 41, to leave out the words "this power," and insert the words "the power of letting for more than a week, and the power of sale or exchange."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

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

MR. T. H. BOLTON

moved to substitute the word "year" for the word "week" in the proposed Amendment. He said, the clause applied to land as well as buildings, and it would be absurd to prohibit the Parish Council letting land for more than a week.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, To leave out the word "week," and insert the word "year."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

Question, "That the word 'week' stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'year' be inserted in the proposed Amendment" put, and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

^*MR. T. H. BOLTON moved— In page 6, line 41, to leave out from the word "exercised," to the end of the sub-suction, and insert the words "without the consent of the County Council. He thought it was unnecessary in the letting, selling, and exchange of parish lands to appeal to the governing Boards in London, and that such matters had better be dealt with by the County Council, who knew the local circumstances and who could form an opinion on the spot as to the desirability of letting, selling, or exchange.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 41, to leave out from the word "exercised," to the end of the sub-section, and insert the words " without the consent of the County Council."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Clause 6 enacts that the consent of the Local Government Board must be obtained for the exercise of the Council's powers in certain respects. Under all the circumstances of the case, strong advocate though I am of enlarging the powers of the County Council, I think it is necessary to maintain uniformity. I must therefore disagree with the Amendment.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

There are one or two points which the President of the Local Government Board did not make clear. In the clause the restriction is to apply only to land either acquired by rate or applicable in aid of the rate. My hon. Friend desired that it should apply to all land vested in the Parish Council. The right hon. Gentleman has made no reply to that point. I do not see why all land vested in the parish, whether acquired out of the rates or otherwise, should not also be sold with the authority of the local governing authority, not of the Local Government Board, but of the County Council. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who is so strongly opposed to decentralisation, should have proposed this provision. When I was at the Local Government Board—not for so long a time, though, as my right hon. Friend—I found that the official staff required to be relieved of a great deal of their burdens, and that they were opposed to any addition to the controlling powers and duties of the Department. This is especially a case in which reliance ought to be placed on local experience, rather than to insist on that desire for uniformity with which the right hon. Gentleman credits the officials of the Local Government Board. No absolute uniform rule can, in fact, be laid down as governing the propriety for the sale or exchange of land, and I think it would be very desirable to leave the power in the hands of the County Councils.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

My own wish has been repeatedly overruled on the subject of the powers of the Local Government Board and the County Councils. I have desired, in many instances, to give more power to County Councils, rather than to the Local Government Board, and I have been compelled to retreat from that position on account of the general feeling against me. I may say, however, that I object to have two jurisdictions established within the same parish. If this Amendment were adopted you would have, in order to deal with the great bulk of the parish property, to get the consent of the Local Government Board, but to deal with a large amount of the parish property you would have to get the consent of the County Council. I am sure that of all the sins which I have been guilty of, the last that should be laid to my charge is any desire to increase the duties and powers of the Local Government Board. I may, however, point out that the County Councils meet only once a quarter, whereas the Local Government Board is always accessible. On the more general grounds, however, I must adhere to the words of the Bill in regard to this matter.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was fair to the Committee. The only case in which the Committee had asked the right hon. Gentleman to place the matter in the hands of the Local Government Board was as to the making of certain laws which would apply to elections over the whole country. In every other case, except in this 6th clause, they had asked the right hon. Gentleman to transfer the power from the Local Government Board to the County Council. He thought they ought to have objected to the Local Government Board having the power under Clause 6, for it would have been much better if it were placed in the hands of the County Council, and that they did not make the objection was due to an oversight.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It is not by Clause 6, but by an Act passed many years ago, that the Local Government Board have got this control.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, that might be, but it would have been possible, under Clause 6, to have asked the right hon. Gentleman to transfer this power from the Local Government Board to the County Council. He thought there was a clear distinction in those matters between the two bodies. Wherever uniformity was desired the Local Government Board was preferable, but in cases where local characteristics had to be considered they ought to substitute the County Council for the Local Government Board on every possible occasion. Personally, indeed, he was strongly in favour of expunging the Local Government Board from all provisions of the Bill where it could be done.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would adhere to the clause; and he made that appeal to his right hon. Friend on behalf of the County Councils. Instead of increasing the direct power of the County Council, which was necessary, there was far too much of a disposition to constitute the County Council a sort of Appeal Court from all the other bodies in the country. For that duty the County Council, which met only every three months, was a very incomplete Public Authority. For his own part, he had had a good deal of experience of dealing with the Local Government Board, and he had found, on the whole, that if they only poked them up a little they would get the work done more efficiently and more on a uniform plan than if they left it to the County Council.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, there appeared to be two classes of parish properly, one class being dealt with under Clause 6, and the other dealt with under this clause. He did not see the necessity of Clause 6. Surely they should deal with all parish property on the same lines? He would like to have it explained why they left some parish property to be dealt with by the County Council, and other parish property to be dealt with by the Local Government Board. He hoped some explanation would be given by some member of the Government, for it seemed to him that this complicated arrangement would lead to very considerable confusion.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he wished to say a few words on the large question of principle involved in this matter. No one thought it could be raised on Clause 6—it might have been an omission, but certainly they had had no question directly raised as to whether there was to be more centralisation or less centralisation in the future. He put it to the President of the Local Government Board that this really was a question of bringing a great Public Department for the first time into contact with 12,000 new Local Bodies. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would view that prospect with great favour. With regard to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman as to the necessity for uniformity, he would point out that this very clause brought in two Governing Bodies. He ventured to think that in all those minor matters it was better to go to the Local Authority than to the Central Authority; and he could not at all understand the action of hon. Members like the Member for Sunderland, who were always protesting against centralisation, and yet took every possible opportunity to object to an extension of the powers of Local Bodies. He thought the County Council was far preferable for dealing with these matters than the Local Government Board. He had recently heard of appeals to the Local Government Board which had taken nine or twelve months to decide. How it would be possible for the Board to do its work if they brought it into contact with thousands upon thousands of little Local Authorities, he could not conceive. It was true the County Council only met quarterly; but they had officers, and he thought that in the interest of economy and time many of those matters might be left for decision to the officials of the County Councils.

MR. W. LONG

said, that as he did not agree with the hon. Gentlemen who supported the Amendment, though he generally acted with them, he desired to give one simple reason why he should with absolute confidence support the proposal of the Government. He had heard a great deal about decentralization, and of conferring certain obligations and duties on the County Councils. He had not the honour of being a member of a County Council but he had observed that when it was proposed to place new duties on the County Council they were generally of a disagreeable character, and tended to bring the County Council into conflict with the subordinate authorities He ventured to say that they would not decentralise a bit by transferring those duties from the Local Government Board to the County Council, while they would unquestionably add to county expenditure enormously, by bringing into existence to discharge those duties a large number of officers, who would be paid out of the county rates, instead of the present much more advantageous system of officers paid out of the Imperial Exchequer, which to that extent relieved the local rates. For those reasons, and because he thought the Local Government Board was the best authority to be left as a final Court of Appeal in those matters, he opposed the Amendment.

MR. STEPHENS

said, he desired to say a word or two to induce the President of the Local Government Board to take a firm stand against overloading his Department with those duties. The question was not whether those duties were disagreeable or not, but whether control would be more satisfactorily administered by the County Council than by the Local Government Board. He submitted that the control exercised by a Representative Authority must be more satisfactory to the Parish Councils than the control of an Inspector of a Central Board. The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that this control of the parishes was much more serious than the control which the Local Government Board exercised over the large Municipal Bodies. When the Bill started on its way through the House there were about 14 controls by the Local Government Board over the parishes; but the number was rising very fast, and it behoved the President of the Local Government Board to consider whether his Department would really be able to deal with the duties cast upon it. He had correspondents pointing out to him that the work of the Local Government Board was already largely in arrear; that Local Government Board inquiries promised a year ago had not yet been held, and that very great injury had been inflicted on many parts of the country through the absolute inability of the Local Government Board to perform the duties which already existed. He thought that a very good reason why the Amendment should be accepted.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, that as he had made his protest against the proposal to confer these powers on the Local Government Board rather than on the County Council, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, but would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS moved— In page 7, leave out from the end of Subsection 2, the words "or in any other case, without such consent or approval as is required under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1891. These words would permit the Charity Commissioners to exercise a control over the letting of land vested in the Parish Councils for parish allotments, and that, in his opinion, would be a very bad arrangement. If the Parish Councils were entrusted with any powers at all, they ought to be entrusted with the administration of the Allotments Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, to leave out from Sub-section 2 all the words from the word "or" to the end of the Sub-section. — (Mr. Jesse Callings.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLEK

I must object to the Amendment, but as I recognise that there may be friction with the Charity Commissioners in the letting of land for allotments, I am willing to add to the end of the sub-section the words— Provided that the consent of the Charity Commissioners shall not be required in the letting of allotments in land under the Parish Council.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he accepted these words, and would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 7, line 4, to add to the end of the sub-section—"Provided that the consent of the Charity Commissioners shall not be required in the letting of allotments in land under the Parish Council."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, to omit Subsection 3 of the clause. He did not intend to move it, but he would like to ask why it was considered necessary to insert the reservation— (3) Nothing in this section shall derogate from any obligation of a District Council with respect to the supply of water or the execution of sanitary works. That obligation was on the Sanitary Authority, and he did not see that there was anything in the Act to deprive the Sanitary Authority of that obligation.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We have been giving certain powers which may be open to argument, and we want to specially guard the matters referred to in the sub-section.

On Motion of Mr. BRUNNER, the following Amendment was agreed to — In page 7, line 7, at end, add—"(4) Notice of any application to the Board of Agriculture in relation to a common shall be served upon the Council of every parish in which any part of the common to which the application relates is situate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he desired at this point to call attention to the fact that assurances had been given by the President of the Local Government Board a short time ago that the compulsory provisions of Clause 9 in the Bill would not apply to the acquisition of a right of way. He had accepted that assurance, as he was sure the right hon. Gentleman had intended it, in perfect good faith. But he had felt some doubt on the point, and after a conversation with some of his hon. Friends more learned in the law, he had arrived at the conclusion that the clause now to be put from the Chair, taken in conjunction with Clause 9, which dealt with compulsory powers, would cover the acquisition of a right of way. Clause 9 provided that for the acquisition of land for any purpose to which the parish desired to apply it proceedings must be taken under the Allotments Act of 1887. Turning to the Allotments Acts—Section 3, Sub-section 5—he found that in construing for the purposes of the clause the word "land," the word should have the same meaning as in the Act—that was, the Allotments Act; and the Definition Clause of that Act declared that the expression "land" included "pasture, arable, and other land, and any right of way or easement." It was, therefore, clear that under Clause 9, as drawn, the Bill could be applied to the acquisition of rights of way, and that being so he was sure the right hon. Gentleman, in fulfilment of his honourable engagement to the Committee, would see that words were included providing that the clause should not apply to the acquisition of a right of way.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that if the legal friends of the right hon. Gentleman had discovered this blot on the Bill it would have been well if they had pointed it out themselves. If it were so, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, then it must be corrected. But he was inclined to think that the governing words in Clause 9 were that in the acquisition of land they were to adopt the procedure of the Allotments Act, and there was nothing in that Act which said that the word "land" should have a different meaning from its legal meaning, which did not include a right of way. However, the matter would be looked into.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he was glad to hear that the matter would be looked into. With regard to the first observation of his hon. and learned Friend, he would point out that it was no uncommon thing for gentlemen who were not lawyers to ask those who were lawyers their opinion on legal points. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that when he first looked at the matter he himself formed the same view as had been expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but having looked into the sections since, he was satisfied the point was by no means clear. He hoped, therefore, the Solicitor General would understand that they did not want to throw doubt on his opinion with regard to the point, but they wished to say that it might not be so absolutely clear as the hon. and learned Gentleman thought. He took the responsibility of saying that the point required further consideration. He was sure the Solicitor General would not be discourteous, and he could assure his hon. and learned Friend that this was not a point taken on anonymous assertion, but a point which the lawyers came to the conclusion there was a serious doubt about it, and that it was a matter which required to be set clear.

SIR J. RIGBY

had no sort of intention of being discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, or those who thought with him on this matter. What he did think the Government had some reason to complain of was that again and again, without their receiving the slightest assistance from hon. Gentlemen opposite, those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen said—"Oh, if you look into it you will find it is not so clear." If any lawyer saw the difficulty he should have thought the way to promote and facilitate the progress of the proceedings was to have pointed it out, and not to have said there were difficulties.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman: intended to be discourteous, but he would point out that when he raised this matter —which he did on his own responsibility as a Member of Parliament—he said he had consulted several of his Colleagues more learned in the law than himself, and, fortified by their opinion and judgment, he expressed the opinion that the words in the clause were not sufficient to carry out the intention of the Government. He stated that, and was flatly contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Lowther) now said that his contention was correct, and that farther words would be required. The hon. and learned Gentleman, he knew, did not intend to act discourteously, but he hoped he would see that his ipse dixit, however ready they might be to accept it, must not preclude them from making further investigation into points of this kind.

SIR J. RIGBY

repeated that he had no idea of being, and was not, discourteous. If the right hon. Gentleman would recall what he (Sir J. Rigby) said, he would remember that, instead of on his ipse dixit, flatly contradicting the right hon. Gentleman, he began by saying that the matter should receive consideration, and if it turned out there was any point in the objection it should be attended to, but at present he was of opinion, on the true construction of the clause, that there was no point in the objection. That being the case, he was surely not discourteous.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman must not misunderstand him. He expressly said he excluded him from any discourtesy. When he spoke of flat contradiction he was speaking not of what fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman just now, but rather of the first occasion when he (Mr. Lowther) raised this point to-night. He then asked if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill held that his (Mr. Lowther's) contention was inaccurate, and the right hon. Gentleman intimated that he did so hold. That was what he called a flat contradiction. He asserted his opinion, and the right hon. Gentleman then asserted his in the opposite sense.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, when the right hon. Gentleman mentioned his legal advisers on this matter he intimated that they were not very great authorities. Had the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight intimated that he had doubt on the point, such an expression would no doubt have carried great weight. At all events, if there was a doubt it should be looked into.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 (Powers of Parish Council for acquisition of land.)

DR. CLARK (Caithness), on behalf of Mr. W. SAUNDERS (Newington, Walworth), said, he wished to move the following Amendment:— In page 7, line 8, to leave out "purchase," and insert "acquisition.

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

DR. CLARK

said, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, because by his own clause he would require a modification. The question really was whether the Parish Councils were to buy land and to sell it again to a tenant, or whether they were to buy it and let it to a tenant? The original proposal of the Bill was purchase, and purchase only—that the Parish Council should buy and then sell. They had a discussion last year on the 24th of March upon this question, when it was sought to empower County Councils to buy land, a speech was made by the First Lord of the Treasury, who asked why a County Council should not be able to hold land on fen from the landowner; it seemed to him (the Prime Minister) that there was considerable danger and difficulty in requiring the County Council to purchase and then empowering them to let, and he was not aware of any reason why they should not authorise the County Council to take land upon fen, of course upon fair terms. That was, in his (Dr. Clark's) opinion, a strong reason why they should have what was probably the oldest form of land tenure since land tenures began, the old Roman emphyteusis, which existed now in various parts of the world under different names. He thought they should carry into effect the recommendations of the various Committees that had sat upon this question. A Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was Chairman, sat about two years ago upon this question, and they suggested a method of acquiring land which he thought should now be carried out when they legislated upon this matter. They, the Small Holdings Committee, appointed by the Conservative Government, reported that the Local Authorities should be authorised to acquire land for small holdings, and they suggested the borrowing of money from the Exchequer, and then to allot the land. He hoped the Government would carry out that scheme.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, line 8, to leave out the word "purchase," and insert the word "acquisition." —(Dr. Clark.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

This is a question which has nothing to do with small holdings. It has nothing to do even with allotments. I am quite willing to accept the word "acquisition," because it is the word used in the Lands Clauses Act, and is perhaps a better word for the purpose.

DR. CLARK

said, that if the Liberal Party were going to be just and generous to the landlords they ought also to consider the new landlords they were going to create. One of the articles in the Newcastle Programme was the taxation of land values, and if they proposed to buy the land from the present holders, and sell it to another class of holders, and then to tax away all that these men had bought, they would he inducing them to throw away their money, and to take a course that would be utterly unjust to the new buyers. It would be a wiser course to acquire land for letting purposes only, and if the Committee were going to do anything in the form of purchase they should only use public credit for the benefit of the public as a whole, and not for any class.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said, he did not rise at this moment to enter upon a general discussion of this question, the importance of which the Committee would perceive. He merely rose to point out that when the right hon. Gentleman stated just now that this Bill in no way interfered either with the Small Holdings Act or—as he understood him—the Allotments Act, although that statement was true as regarded the original Bill, the whole position was very much altered by the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had placed upon the Paper only yesterday or this morning. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: Two or three days ago.] The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had now placed upon the Paper undoubtedly altered both the Allotments Act and the Small Holdings Act, and a most serious question was raised. He owned that when he first read it he had a doubt in his own mind as to whether the Government were so anxious to pass this Bill as they now professed to be, because why should they introduce into the Bill large questions of this character, which entirely altered the character of the Allotments Act and the Small Holdings Act? They would no doubt have a full explanation from the Government as to what they proposed, and the reasons by which they had been induced to take this course.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

There is nothing in this Bill in reference to the purchase of land by a Parish Council for allotments or small holdings. When the proper time arrives I shall he quite willing to discuss the wisdom or folly of those proposals. "Acquisition" is a ranch wider word than "purchase"; it includes purchase. There is no power in this Act which I am aware of to buy land for the purpose of selling it again. I cannot enter into the discussion which has been initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness. "Acquisition" is a better word than "purchase," but beyond that I am not prepared to go.

Question put, and negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next two Amendments are out of Order.

SIR R. PAGET

asked, as a point of Order, what the objection was to his Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

It proposes to leave out an exception to the Land Clauses Act, and to leave out the exception would be meaningless here.

SIR R. PAGET rose—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The next Amendment is in the name of Mr. Saunders.

MR. E. STANHOPE

No one, I am sure, wishes to argue with the Chair, but I submit that as Members of the House we are entitled to raise points of Order. The hon. Baronet and one or two other Members rose to do that. Before you give your decision, surely it is right to hear hon. Members. [Cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

I heard the objection. The matter is one I have carefully considered, and I have come to the conclusion that the Amendment is out of Order. It certainly would be an extraordinary thing to allow an argument upon a ruling from the Chair of that character. I hope—and I believe it is the case—that the Committee will give me credit for being always ready to consider legitimate points of Order.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, he wished to draw attention to an important point in connection with this clause. In line 12 reference was made to the 178th section of the Public Health Act of 1875. That section only dealt with the acquisition of land in the Duchy of Lancaster, and it seemed to him clear that the 178th was a misprint for the 176th section.

MR. BUCKNILL

said, the whole of the first part of the clause, with the exception of 'the words "Parish Council," and with the addition of the words "under this Act," was taken word for word from the Small Agricultural Holdings Act of 1892.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he understood that they were proposing to incorporate the 178th section of the Public Health Act, and not the 176th in the Bill, but as he was without specific information on the point, he would make inquiries, and if he found that a mistake had been made it would be rectified hereafter.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he would move an Amendment to enable a parish to obtain a water supply where it was necessary. The case he wished to bring specifically before the Committee was not one which would apply in many other constituencies than his own. But in his own constituency there were cases where the only water supply available for the use of the community was connected with disused mines. Two of the parishes he was interested in were at present seeking powers to avail themselves of such water supplies. The answer which had been received from the landlords owning the water supplies—certainly in one case, and he believed in both—was that they would not permit the water to be used as proposed except on the understanding that the user should be terminated at any time by a six months' notice, the plea given for that extraordinary refusal being that the mines from which this water supply was mainly drawn might at some future time be brought into work again when the water would be required. He believed these mines had not been working for a quarter of a century. But the point of his contention was that it was not right that any individual should have power to refuse one of the first necessities of health to a large number of individuals. It stood to reason that if a parish had to lay out a large sum of money for the purpose of establishing waterworks and bringing in a supply of water by pipes and otherwise it should not be under the possibility of having the supply of water cut off on six months' notice. The only way that he could see of getting over the difficulty was by providing that the Parish Council should have powers to compel the landlord to grant the water supply without limitation as to notice. He regretted that he had not been in his place before the last clause was disposed of, so that he could have moved an Amendment to give the County Council direct power in the matter. Under the present Amendment, if the Parish Council were unable by voluntary agreement to obtain the power of utilising any supply of water within their parish they could represent the case to the District Council.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, line 16, after the word "it," to insert the words "or the power of utilising any supply of water within their parish."— (Mr. Conybeare.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he very much regretted that the hon. Member was not present to raise the question on the last clause, for on that clause the powers of the Parish Councils in regard to water supply had been fully discussed. It had been decided that the Parish Councils should have no waterworks powers whatever. The Committee had limited their powers to simply utilising water supplies, and had vetoed anything in the nature of a compulsory power to take water. If the compulsory powers contemplated in the Amendment were sanctioned, they would be conferring on the Parish Councils powers which at present no Sanitary Authority and no Municipality in the Kingdom possessed. The District Councils would have power to acquire water supplies.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he was content with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. He did not wish to see powers conferred on the Parish Councils that larger Local Authorities did not possess. He would rest satisfied with the assurance that the District Councils would be able to move in the matter of obtaining water supplies for local districts.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. LONG

In the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wellington Division of Somerset (Sir A. Acland-Hood) I beg to move the Amendment standing in that hon. Member's name—namely, In page 7, line 16, to leave out from "may," to end of Clause, and insert "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 other- wise than by agreement shall apply with the substitution of 'Parish Council' for 'Sanitary Authority.' I move the Amendment, because it seems to me that on the whole this is the most convenient method, and probably the most convenient time to consider the proposals of the Government so far as they are contained in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford has already referred to the fact that the Government has placed on the Paper an Amendment dealing with the acquisition of land for allotment purposes, and he has already referred to the fact that the Amendment takes a very important form, that is to say, that it amounts to a reform of the existing Allotment Acts. I may say, in other words, that the opportunity is taken of the Bill to introduce a new Allotments Act altogether. Well, Sir, we have had occasion before, on this side of the House, to refer, in no spirit of contention or factious opposition, but in perfect good faith, to the difficulty under which we have laboured from the commencement in the consideration of this Bill in Committee in regard to the somewhat peculiar arrangement of the different clauses. It is undoubtedly extremely awkward for Members of the House who desire to discuss the proposals of this Bill to find themselves confronted by the fact that a clause which deals only in part with certain proposals hangs on another clause or on other clauses in other parts of the Bill. This difficulty arises in an accentuated form on Clause 9. This clause is, perhaps, the first in the Bill which proposes to effect any material and important alteration in the existing law, and it is a clause which, no matter whether hon. Members agree or disagree with it, will, undoubtedly lead to very considerable Debate. Now, what has been the procedure of Her Majesty's Government? I am glad to take this opportunity of saying, that throughout the whole of the Bill, from its introduction down to the present moment, no Member of the Opposition has any right to complain in the slightest degree of the attitude taken up towards our suggestions by the Minister in charge of the Bill. On the contrary, the utmost courtesy, the greatest possible good temper, and the most perfect patience have governed the right hon. Gentleman, in circumstances which I am certain he has found to be of exceptional difficulty, and which the Committee must admit, if they stop to consider for a moment, have had very few parallels in the records of this House. The proposals are of a novel character, and the right hon. Gentleman has frequently told us himself that the Bill is an experiment; therefore he has not had, as other Ministers have had before him, precedents to assist him in the course he has taken. We have no cause to complain of the course he has adopted, but are glad to acknowledge the courtesy and goodwill with which he has met us. Having said that, I feel myself better able to complain, as I do, of the course to which the right hon. Gentleman — no doubt for good reasons, which he will be able to advance later on — has taken in regard to this clause. The clause is one of the most important to be found in the Bill, whether it is viewed from the point of view of hon. Members opposite in regard to its effect on future dealings in land—from the point of view of those who desire to see land acquired more easily than it is at present for certain purposes—or from the point of view of right hon. Gentlemen on this side, who say that there is no ground for allowing land to be taken compulsorily unless Parliament is allowed to intervene in the first instance, and say whether compulsion shall be exercised or not. Under this clause the Provisional Order system is dispensed with, and a Government Department is clothed with the very invidious and difficult and responsible task of saying whether or not a man's property shall be taken from him and devoted to a particular purpose against his will. But things do not stop there. Hitherto, when Parliament has authorised the compulsory acquisition of anybody's land for a particular purpose it has generally done so—to put it briefly—on these grounds: Land, it has said, cannot be regarded as property in the same way as houses; it is necessary for the existence of the community, and if a man chooses to make use of it in an improper way (that is to say, declines to allow the community to benefit from it), Parliament must step in and take it from him in the interest of the public. That is the line Parliament has hitherto taken; but, at all events, it has gone on to say that if land is taken compulsorily it shall be taken at a fair valuation, and that a special sum shall be paid in recognition of the fact that compulsion is exercised. [Sir J. RIGBY: No, no.] The hon. and learned Member will be able to show me if I am wrong. I confine myself now to the particular suggestion of the Government. Hitherto Parliament has said what amounts to this, that compulsory purchase from an unwilling seller shall not be regarded in the same light as voluntary sale. The change proposed in the law by this clause is most injurious not only to landowners — because their interest, I admit, is, in the consideration of this question, a minor matter — but to the community, and those on whose behalf this proposal is made. And the further proposal is the most injurious and mischievous of all, because it was proposed that land, under certain circumstances, should not only be bought, but hired compulsorily for a certain number of years. That is a much more serious change, because, at all events, under the system of compulsory purchase you have bought your land and paid a certain price for it, but here you take over the temporary ownership of land for a certain period of years, and you retain to yourselves the right to throw back on the owner that land in a deteriorated condition. You say to that landowner, if he ventures to complain—"We will compensate you," and in your generosity you compensate him out of his own pocket. These changes, I say, are of a most serious character, and should receive the most careful consideration of Parliament. I heard something earlier in the evening about the length to which these Debates have been carried. Well, Sir, I have had some experience of conducting through this House a Local Government Bill, and even if my memory had not served me in the matter, there are methods by which one can refresh one's memory as to the way in which these Debates were carried on. We acknowledged at the time of the passing of that Bill the courteous and valuable assistance we received from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were then sitting here; but, at the same time, we can point to the fact that many and many a discussion raised on the Committee stage took the form of a Second Reading Debate. I do not think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will complain when we say that we have now reached a clause which we consider should receive the most careful consideration of Parliament. We are as anxious as they are that the ownership of land should be extended, and that allotments and small holdings should be extended over as wide an area as possible; but we are not prepared to see great and grave changes made in the law of ownership of land without, at all events, the full time and attention of Parliament being devoted to the matter. Now, what are the proposals the Government have made? They are twofold. There is the proposal in the Bill, and the proposal which comes in the form of a new clause. This two-fold arrangement is most unfortunate in the interest of the Government themselves. They want to pass their Bill; they want to get it placed on the Statute Book with as little delay as possible. Then why in the name of fortune do they force upon the House a two-fold discussion when one would have sufficed? Had the new proposals been introduced as Amendments to the Clause the Committee might have discussed the whole subject of allotments, whereas now the new proposals, serious and important as they are, must be postponed until the end of the Bill has been reached. I cannot discuss the new proposals of the Government—I should be out of Order if I did—but I can ask the Committee to consider what the law is as it stands now, and what reason there is that it should be changed. The late Government, in 1887, allows Local Authorities to hire laud by agreement, and when a Local Authority fails it gives power of purchasing by compulsion. This Bill, as it stands, displaces the Provisional Order system which has to be initiated by the County Council, Parliament then affirming or refusing to permit compulsory purchase. The County Council is kept only as the initiatory authority, the Local Government Board being given absolute discretion, which will enable it if it wishes to order land to be compulsorily purchased. Then the Local Authorities are given the opportunity of compulsory hiring. I will not take up the time of the Committee by dealing with that matter at length, but there are many hon. Gentlemen opposite, and in all quarters of the House, who, however keen they may be as Party men, are still practical and fair-minded men, and I want to give them on this question of hiring land for allotments the benefit of my own personal experience, which happens to have been peculiar. My predecessors in the property which I possess let some land for allotments in two different parishes 10 miles apart. I have no reason to believe they exercised less discrimination in the selection of the land than in other cases where they provided allotments. The land was cultivated for a considerable length of time, but eventually one of the plots turned out to be unkind land for purposes of spade cultivation, and the other, from local circumstances which I need not detail, ceased to command the attention of its occupiers. Well, what happened? I found them being grossly neglected and extremely badly cultivated, and the allotment tenants themselves indicated to me that the fields were not desirable, and that they would like to give them up. As I say, I, as owner, found the land in a most deteriorated condition, and dirty beyond description—not owing to any fault on the part of the tenants, but entirely on account of the unkind character of the soil in one case, and the other on account of the local circumstances I have alluded to. I was glad and willing to take the fields myself, and to find the tenants, as I thought, land more suitable for allotments. I took the risk and loss on my own shoulders. But in this I was dealing with my own property. Nobody else was called upon to pay for what I chose to consider a duty. But there is all the difference in the world between an individual who voluntarily undertakes loss or damage incurred on his own property and a Public Authority doing it when the loss and burden have to be borne by the ratepayers. The plots of which I am speaking were handed back after having been occupied for some considerable time in an utterly deteriorated condition. I had to get a neighbouring tenant to take them at a considerably reduced rent. The loss was mine. I am not complaining of it. I do not want the Committee to think that I am regarding that as money out of pocket. Whereas the land was originally worth 40s., and when it was given up it was only worth 15s., I do not want them to consider that I am regarding the difference between 40s. and 15s. What I want the Committee to regard is that here is a case where the persons who let the land knew what they were doing, and acted with the best intentions, but yet where the result was entirely unsatisfactory, the land, after an occupation of some years, being given up unfit for anyone to take who wished it to be remunerative. What will be the position of the Local Authorities? They will do their best. They will let land which they believe to be suitable on terms which they believe to be reasonable. If, however, at the end of 7 or 14 years it turns out that they were mistaken, and that the land was not fit for allotments, what will be the result? It will be given up to them by the tenants, and they will surrender it to the owner. Well, I ask, is it fair compulsorily to take land from a man on a hiring system for 7 or 14 years and then to throw it back on his hands deteriorated and possibly ruined? Gentlemen opposite say he has no right to complain because he will be compensated. But how will he be compensated? With a cheque, the money to meet which he will as a ratepayer have to draw out of his own pocket. If you say you cannot provide allotments without compulsorily hiring land—which I deny—say so honestly and straightforwardly, but do not pretend that you are giving compensation when you know perfectly well that he will have to pay the compensation out of his own pocket. Let the Committee and the country understand what you are suggesting, and then if Parliament is prepared to endorse your proposals, those who object to them, after having had a full and fair opportunity of stating what their objections are, will loyally abide by the decision arrived at and endeavour to carry it out. I know there are some hon. Members who are actuated by a sincere feeling of opposition to what are called the land-owning classes—a sentiment based not on jealousy or envy or any ridiculous feeling of that kind, but on a conscientious belief that the land-owning classes have not discharged their duty to the community. I appeal to them before acting on any such feelings to put themselves into the position of an owner of land, and to examine the facts for themselves. I think they will then find that there is no reason for attacking the land- owning classes on the ground of any improper discharge of their duties in the past. If that charge can be dismissed, I ask the Committee to approach this question from the practical point of view of men who want to facilitate the acquisition of land in small plots, and who want to see an extension both of the occupation and of the ownership of land in this country on fair terms. Those who understand and care about the interest of our villages and country communities, know perfectly well that there is nothing more closely connected with the welfare of the labouring classes than the condition in which the owners are placed. If yon introduce this system of compulsory hiring you will, in my opinion, do far greater injury to the cause of allotments than you will do good; you will strike a blow at the system instead of helping it. Undoubtedly Local Authorities will take advantage of such a system. They will say—"Here is a limited risk. We will try hiring laud as an experiment. If it does not answer we can get rid of it again." If they do that you may depend upon it that you will not get that continued interest in the question of allotments which you are sure to secure if you make the Local Authority the owner of the land. I think that this is an unwise and unfair departure from the system which has hitherto prevailed with regard to the compulsory acquisition of land, and that it will do harm instead of good to the cause of allotments in this country. For these reasons and for others which I hope will be better expressed by speakers who, I trust, will subsequently address the Committee, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend (Sir A. Acland-Hood). I move it in no hostility to and with no desire to interfere with the system of allotments, but in the belief that the Government are unwisely tampering with the established laws of this country with regard to the acquisition of land, and that if the proposed new system is put into operation the result will be disastrous and ruinous to those whose interests the proposal is intended to serve.

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. Long.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the kind manner in which he has recognised my very feeble efforts to carry this Bill through the Committee. I have thought it my duty to regard this Bill as a measure on which Members in all parts of the House might throw great light and make many valuable suggestions; and though perhaps I may be very severely criticised in some quarters for not having stood by every line of the Bill, I am certain it will be a much better Bill by reason of the Amendments it has received in the course of the discussion. I hope to pursue the same policy until we have disposed of the Bill. With reference to the Amendment, I think the hon. Member complained that the Committee was put in some difficulty on account of the procedure which the Government has pursued in reference to this clause. I would like the Committee to understand what is the procedure the Government has pursued, and I will then put it whether there is any reasonable ground for complaint. The clause as it stands has never been varied from the time the Bill was brought in last March, nor do we propose to vary it now. The very great changes we propose have not been sprung upon the Committee. They were before the House when the Bill was brought in, and have been before it from that time to the present. Sub-section (c), which appeared in the clause on the introduction of the Bill, confers on the Local Authority the power to hire land compulsorily for the purpose of allotments. I think I alluded to that power in the speech in which I introduced the Bill to the House. In the Second Reading Debate many criticisms were uttered about the drafting of the sub-section and the novelty of its provisions, and many defects were pointed out in it from both sides of the House. I took the earliest possible opportunity of endeavouring to make our meaning clearer, and some weeks ago I put down an Amendment to that clause explanatory of Sub-section (c). A large number of Amend- ments were put down to my Amendments, and a great many representations were made to me—a great many publicly in newspapers that were sent to me, and a great many privately by Members of the House, and various Associations and individuals from all parts of the Kingdom—pointing out that even my Amendment was defective, and that in order to make the clause work it would be necessary to alter it still further. With the assistance of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. H. Gardner), who, I am sorry to say, is absent on account of illness, I have thoroughly considered all these points, and have arrived at the conclusion that the fairest and wisest and best way for the Committee to deal with the question of compulsory hiring is by the introduction of a separate clause, taking that question altogether out of Clause9, and dealing with it by itself. The Committee will, if they adopt that course, have, as they would not have if they attempted to amend this clause, an opportunity of discussing the principle very fully on the Second Reading of the new clause, and will so have an opportunity of amending it if they think proper. I do not think that will be found to be either an inconvenient or a dilatory mode of procedure. On the Second Reading of the new clause we shall be prepared to say what we can in favour of it, and at the same time respectfully to listen to the criticisms that may be brought against it. I quite recognise the importance—the supreme importance—of the present clause, and I do not want to take any captious objection to the effect that the whole question cannot be raised upon the Amendment. I think, on the contrary, that the hon. Gentleman has adopted a very convenient way of raising his objection to the Government scheme as a whole, and I shall be very glad if the Committee will take his lead and discuss the clause as a whole. Of course, however, I must put in a respectful request that we should not have the discussion all over again when we come to deal with the clause line by line. Under the Allotments Act of 1887 if the Sanitary Authority are unable to obtain land for the purpose of allotments, the course of procedure is to petition the County Council. The County Council hold a local inquiry and, if a case is made out, issues a Provisional Order. It is then the duty of the Local Government Board to introduce into Parliament a Bill confirming the Provisional Order, and if Parliament approves of it, that Provisional Order becomes law. The Committee will see that the stages before obtaining compulsory powers to acquire land are—first, the representation or petition to the County Council; secondly, the inquiry by and decision of the County Council; and, thirdly, the passing of the Provisional Order through Parliament. The Provisional Order may, of course, be contested before a Committee of this House. We are of opinion that this is a dilatory, expensive, and unsatisfactory mode of procedure. I should like to read to the House one or two quotations upon this point before I proceed to deal with the alterations we propose to make. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, speaking some years ago, said— What are the two greatest and most pressing needs of our time? I think most men would say the provision of healthy, decent dwellings in our large towns at fair rents, and in the country for the labourer to obtain a small plot of land which he may be able to work. I believe that both these objects can be obtained through the intervention of the Local Authorities, and I would accordingly give to them the power to acquire any land which it may be necessary for them to take in order to carry out those objects, or for any other public purpose. I would further enable them to acquire it at its fair value, which I define to be the price which a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller in the open market. A few months later the right hon. Gentleman said— I have been anxious that the final settlement of this great question should be referred to those new, local, popular, and representative authorities, which I hope it will be the first duty of any Liberal Government to establish throughout the length and breadth of the land, and to them I have suggested should be given power to acquire land by compulsion at a fair price for every public purpose. And among the public purposes one of the chief I have in view is the letting of allotments and the creation of small tenancies. I am convinced that at the present moment in almost every village there are one or two or more who are well qualified to take advantage of such facilities as these, and who would do well if they could obtain at a reasonable price a fair quantity of the land that they cultivate for the advantage of others, and without hope of benefit to themselves. After dwelling on various arguments my right hon. Friend concluded thus— Under these circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that this increase of the functions of Local Authorities must be an essential feature of any proposal for the reform of local government. These are our views, and these are the views we have put into the Bill. We propose in the Bill that the Parish Council should go to the Local Government Board instead of to the County Council, and that the Local Government Board should make the Order, dispensing with the sanction of Parliament. Now, Sir, is there any precedent for that proposal? Yes. A precedent is to be found in the procedure authorised by the Labourers (Ireland) Act of 1885, amended in 1886. Under those two Acts the Irish Local Government Board are authorised to empower the Sanitary Authority to take land compulsorily subject only to an appeal to the Lord Lieutenant in Council. Then, Sir, we propose that the Local Government Board should make the Order. The hon. Gentleman opposite has not raised a very strong objection to that course. He characterised it as an entirely new procedure; but he did not point to any disadvantages of having an independent and impartial authority for dealing with this question. I know some hon. Members may say—"Why do you not give this power to the County Council?" Well, I have no desire to concentrate power or work on the Local Government Board, but the Local Government Board is responsible to Parliament, while the County Council is not. If you invest the Local Government Board with Parliamentary powers, I think its exercise must be held to be subject to the supreme and final authority of Parliament. That is the reason why we propose that the Local Government Board should be introduced. No doubt there is a great deal to be said on both sides, but it must be admitted that the present procedure is a very expensive one, and a very dilatory one; while the new procedure will be a rapid and an economical one. Is there any reason which any hon. Gentleman can urge why we should adopt an expensive and dilatory procedure when an economical and rapid procedure is at our hands? If you can show that the Local Government Board cannot be trusted, or that their Inspectors are not qualified or able to discharge the duty that will be imposed upon them, you will, of course, bring forward a strong argument against the proposal. Let me, however, read to the Committee some evidence given by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) before the Royal Commission. The Chairman said— I understand you propose a Local Government Board inquiry? My right hon. Friend replied— Certainly. Then Lord Salisbury asked— Would not that swell the already monstrous bill of expenses under which compulsory purchase always suffers? My right hon. Friend replied— No, I do not think so. Local Government Board inquiries, which are on the whole exceedingly satisfactory to everybody concerned, are held on a great number of questions, and they are the cheapest of all local inquiries. They are much more satisfactory than Parliamentary Committees, and, as a rule, after one of these inquiries all parties feel that their interests have been fairly considered, and they cost very little. My right hon. Friend added that, although the inquiry was sometimes informal, justice was almost invariably done. Well, that is the testimony of my right hon. Friend, with his great local and administrative experience, he being at the time a Cabinet Minister, and knowing the cost of these Parliamentary contests. I say you cannot get a witness of greater experience, impartiality, and ability than my right hon. Friend. Compulsory hiring is not in this clause at all.

MR. W. LONG

I beg pardon. Subsection (c).

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have an Amendment down to strike it out.

MR. W. LONG

But the right hon. Gentleman said it was not in the clause. We are entitled to discuss the clause as it stands.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is entitled, when I say I propose to strike it out, to propose that it should remain in. I shall, however, ask the Committee to omit that sub-section and to deal with the question as a whole. Well, our proposition really embodies the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) to have a cheap, an effective, and an independent mode of inquiry before compulsory powers are put in force. Remember that there is nothing new. These compulsory powers already exist under the Allotments Act. We take the compulsory powers gentlemen opposite themselves proposed, and put in this new mode of procedure. The hon. Gentleman said that the law of this country had always given some compensation in case of a man's land being taken compulorily. I admit that that practice has prevailed. I cannot admit it is the law; there is nothing in the Lands Clauses Act to justify such a charge; it has been the universal practice, and I may call it universal robbery—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes, a universal robbery. I have no hesitation in saying that, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Chamberlain) in regard to that. When the compulsory powers were put in force under the Artisans Dwellings Act to take land in Birmingham for public purposes, you may say that a fifth, if not a fourth, more was paid for the land than its real value. The Corporation were spending £250,000, and I say deliberately the town was robbed of at least £50,000 under the pretence of giving compensation. But there is the highest authority for this proposal, for under the Housing of the Working Classes Act the late Government themselves abolished compensation for compulsory purchase.

MR. W. LONG

The right hon. Gentleman quotes the late Government, and I must say the only case in which compensation for compulsory purchase was abolished by the late Government was the case of taking over dwellings because they were insanitary. Does he ask the Committee to believe that a comparison can fairly be drawn between the case of land taken for allotments and houses taken because they were insanitary? [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"] The right hon. Gentleman, himself would be the last to say there is any comparison, and I think he has made the comparison without realising the distinction.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do not say the comparison is on all-fours, but the principle is the same. You take the land; and the mere fact that a man has property in an insanitary condition does not deprive him of the right to have its full value; he should have the full value, but he should have nothing more. I shall be quite prepared to discuss the sub-section when it comes up. With regard to the other part of the case— the working of allotments—I confess I am not sufficient of a champion to compete with the hon. Gentleman. What I have to do—and I hope I have done it in a fair spirit—is to state the procedure of the Government in dealing with this case. My right hon. Friends on this Bench and behind me understand the matter better than I do, and, therefore, I do not propose to trouble the Committee any further on the subject, and I hope we may have the advantage of the advice and assistance of the Minister of Agriculture before we reach the new clause. But my first object is to vindicate the Government for the course they have taken, and, secondly, to say that in changing the mode of procedure we are carrying out what we believe to be a material and desirable reform which we are prepared to defend, and on those merits alone we ask the Committee to come to a decision.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

No one, I am sure, will question the conciliatory tone of the right hon. Gentleman, not only in the speech he has just delivered to the Committee, but also throughout these proceedings, and I am also glad to be able to agree with him as to the supreme importance of the clause on which we are now engaged. That was the expression of the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not think he exaggerated in any degree; but I am bound to say I must differ with him in the opinion as to the convenience of the Government making radical alterations in a clause they themselves considered to be of supreme importance, almost at the last moment before it is reached. It adds greatly to our difficulty in discussing this question within the strict confines and limits to be observed in this Committee, and on that ground I think, when the Government have made up their minds to make radical alterations in a clause of extreme importance, we have some ground of complaint against the Government in not having made up their minds in the first instance. The clause on which we are engaged at this moment raises two distinct questions: The question of the acquisition of land by compulsion without its being necessary to come to Parliament. This is the first question, and the next question is that of compulsion being by hire—

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No.

MR. CHAPLIN

Well, it is raised. The right hon. Gentleman tells me it is not raised on this clause, and I must read out a paragraph of his own clause. Section (c) states—[Cries of "Agreed!"] It is not agreed, because the right hon. Gentleman says it does not raise the question.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I am going to move the omission of that section.

MR. CHAPLIN

Certainly; but he has no right to assume that because he proposes the House of Commons is going to act upon it. What we have to deal with is not the admirable intentions of the right hon. Gentleman, but to deal with the Bill as it is printed and is before us. The Bill most undoubtedly raises the question, and states that— Where the land is proposed to be taken for allotments, the order may authorise the Council to hire compulsorily all or part of the land for a period not less than seven years, and in the course of his observations that was the part to which he desired to direct the attention of the Committee. Let me in the first place deal with the precedent of laud being taken by compulsion without the definite sanction of Parliament. How does he support that? On two grounds: he gave a quotation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and also alluded to an Irish precedent for legislation of this sort. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), I am not prepared to accept those remarks as a satisfactory or sufficient explanation of the policy he asks the House of Commons now to adopt; and I think there are several objections to it, if he will allow me to point them out. In the first place, that is an entirely new departure from the practice and precedents observed in Parliament, for I do not know how many generations. It is not a light matter to take property from one individual for the purpose of conferring it upon or handing it over to another. It should not be treated simply by the ipse dixit of the head of a Go- vernment Department, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that for the proper and sufficient safeguarding of the owner of this property he should have the right to come to Parliament for the sanction of so extreme a proceeding, for that it is an extreme proceeding, whether right or wrong, I do not suppose any generation in this House would be inclined to dispute. But I go further and say in my humble opinion—and, if I remember aright, that was strongly urged by my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading of the Bill—this is a very great, and I am bound to say, an unfair responsibility to cast upon the head of any Government Department at all, and I have not heard any any answer offered by the right hon. Gentleman to that objection. I cannot say with what complacency he may view this addition to his views in the future, but I confess I shall not very much envy him when he has to be responsible for this violent taking of property from one person and handing it over to another, a proceeding that may happen I do not know how many times or in how many districts in the course of a year. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that the owners of this kind of property may be expected to have some reasonable grounds for doubting whether the machinery proposed in this Bill is such as to give them fair and legitimate safeguards against robbery and interference of their rights as every person in this country, and every owner of property, has a right to expect. It has been said —and this is the only shadow of justification I have been able to collect in support of this policy of the right hon. Gentleman—that it is to avoid the great expense which accompanies the present plan. But is not that rather over-rated? Is it not the fact at the present time that if unreasonable opposition is offered to the compulsory acquisition, there are provisions by which all the expense that is incurred may be thrown upon the 'person who offers that unreasonable opposition? If the opposition is not unreasonable, then the expense is not thrown upon him; and it is to be contended for a moment that a man ought to be fined and mulcted in payment of expenses for offering opposition to the taking away of property which Parliament has judged not unreasonable? Seeing this proposition is made for the first time in England, and that it is an entirely new departure from all the precedents and practices of the past, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will be of the opinion that a most inadequate defence has been offered for the proceedings the Government propose. Now, Sir, I come to the question of compulsory hire, and here the right hon. Gentleman told us with great truth the clause was brought in at the commencement of the Session, or, rather, when the Bill was introduced which contained this novel principle. He alluded to it in his speech. He said he had a conference on this important subject with the Minister of Agriculture, and he gave us a great deal of interesting information with regard to it, but there was one most curious omission which was all the more remarkable because it occurred on the introduction of the Bill, on the Second Reading of the Bill, and in the speech the right hon. Gentleman had just delivered, and that omission was this: that he had never given a shadow of a reason or justification for the adoption of this entirely new principle; from first to last not one single word has been given in any of the speeches delivered to justify the adoption of the policy of compulsory hiring. Is there anything more extraordinary in the whole history of Parliament? A Minister at the head of a great Government Department, charged with one important Bill of the Session, in dealing with a clause he considers to be of supreme importance, does not-think it necessary to offer one single reason or one word in support or justification of an entirely new policy in a Bill of the most extreme importance.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It is quite true I said nothing about it, but it is equally true that the Secretary to the Local Government Board delivered a speech of great length on the Second Reading in which he dealt with the question of compulsory hiring.

MR. CHAPLIN

The Secretary to the Local Government Board offered no justification for it, and he never gave a reason—[Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"] I have not his speech with me at this moment, but I have followed the Debates with tolerable care, and read the speeches that have been delivered, and I say that the Committee are still in the dark as to the grounds on which the Government justify this complete departure from all principles hitherto sanctioned by this House. If the Government are unable to justify themselves for the adoption of this policy, I can point out — and, with the permission of the Committee, I desire to point out—some of the objections to this policy. Now, Sir, there is nothing new in the principle of the compulsory acquisition of land in this country for the purposes of public policy. That is a principle that has been adopted by all Parties in the State; it has been sanctioned by experience and by precedent as well; but the Committee is well aware that one of the primary obligations —the primary obligation of all—which accompanies the adoption of that principle is this: that pecuniary compensation must be made to the owner from whom the land is taken. You are now going to depart from that principle, and I would ask what pecuniary compensation are you to make to the man from whom the land is compulsorily hired? It is only to be paid by the rent, whether the owner of the land desires to sell or not. All you offer is the rent for seven years. The owner of the land might want to sell it; the land very possibly might be mortgaged, and a vast deal of the land in this country, unfortunately, is encumbered in that way. Suppose he desires to sell it; suppose his mortgage should be called in—and recollect that the very action you are taking now will probably precipitate action of that kind on the part of the mortgagee. If you are going to pass legislation by which you may compulsorily hire land which is mortgaged, the mortgagee may say to himself—"My security is not so good as it used to be; I will call in my mortgage;" and what is the position of the unfortunate owner of the land? You take his land on lease, and who would buy it subject to that condition? You render it absolutely valueless in the market. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board shakes his head. Has he ever been placed in that position, or has he ever had any experience of that kind?

THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER, Derby, Ilkeston)

Not of mortgages.

MR. CHAPLIN

If he were placed in that position he would probably find that his position was a most unfair one owing entirely to the action of the Government. You may' say the owner may sell his land subject to the value of the lease. Does anyone in this House pretend that the land compulsorily hired would be of the same value to sell as other land? Are you not compelling the unfortunate owner of the land to sell at a loss, and is not his loss the difference between the value of his land when leased under this compulsory hiring and the value it would otherwise possess? On what ground are you justified in inflicting this unfair loss on one kind and particular class of property in the country? I am bound to say, unless for good reasons, I have always held it is a very strong order and an objectionable policy to take land by compulsion from anyone; but to take it by compulsion and by hire, and not even to give the owner of the land the pecuniary compensation that has always been regarded as a primary obligation on you, and against the will of the owner, does appear to me to be the ne plus ultra of tyranny. Now, Sir, I want to know whether this is the time—whether it is a convenient time—and whether it is expedient to adopt a totally new principle of this kind? What is the object that you have in view? I understand it to be the creation of a new class of small owners, and to bring back upon the land a number of that class which formerly gained their livelihood upon it. I was not long ago the author of a Bill which had this object for its purpose, and certainly it does not rest in my mouth to throw any difficulty in the way of a policy of this kind; but still, I cannot shut my eyes or ears to the most recent information we have had on this subject, and I would ask the Committee to consider what is the information we have recently had on this subject from the Labour Commission now sitting. I do not know whether any hon. Members have read with care and attention the Report of some of the Sub-Commissioners; but, if not, I can assure them there is a vast amount of most interesting information to be obtained from them. They deal directly with the question of allotments and with the question of small holdings, and I hope I shall not be trespassing unduly in the distant references I must make to the new clause placed on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman. He proposes to increase the size of the allotment from one to four acres. [" Hear, hear! "] "Hear, hear!" hon. Gentlemen opposite say, but what do these Commissioners tell us? They say that men in work and in receipt of regular wages find that a quarter of an acre is the most they can cultivate with advantage. That is the information you will find from every parish in every quarter of England; that is the information laid on your Table at this moment from the most recent inquiries that have been made. What do they say with regard to small holdings? Is it the difficulty of acquiring land? Nothing of the kind. There has been land offered in quantities over and over again for the provision of small holdings, but your difficulty in this case is applications for small holdings. Again, these Sub-Commissioners will tell you that in all the different parts of England, where they have made examination, the application for small holdings have been very few and far between. I remember quite well that, during the passage of that Bill through the House, I warned the House over and over again, speaking from some knowledge and experience of the subject myself, it could only be regarded as a great experiment, with regard to the success of which no one could possibly prophecy in the future; and though I was most anxious that it should succeed, I was unable to hold out any better hopes than that. And there is another good reason why, at this moment, it should not have been availed of. There has been, as everyone knows, a very great, a very deplorable, and a very unfortunate accession of agricultural depression. It has been bad enough for the last eight or 10 years, God knows, already; but within the last year, no one knows better than my right hon. Friend, who is presiding over the Commission on Agriculture, that the declarations we receive are deplorable, not to say alarming, in the extreme; and, under those circumstances, it does seem to me you are choosing perhaps the most unfortunate time for the adoption of a wholly novel principle like this, and with regard to which it is impossible for anyone to forecast what is likely to happen in the future. I have no objection myself to the hiring of land by Local Authorities, provided it be voluntary, though there is an objection to it even when it is voluntary, and that is, that there is one class in Ireland that is always looked upon and regarded with great suspicion—namely, the middleman. But in this case, in Eng-land, you are going deliberately to create a middleman; you are going to bring in between the owner of the land and the man who hires it another authority. What is the reason of that? I can see in it an advantage to the landlord who desires to let his land, because he gets all the advantage which he derives from the greater security of the Local Authority. But as regards the tenant who is ultimately to hire it, I see no advantage. It is far better for him that he should hire the land first hand than through a Local Authority. As to the reason for the introduction of this wholly novel principle, that is a point upon which we are absolutely in the dark. Is the number of allotments in this country absolutely unsatisfactory; is the increase unsatisfactory; has it not exceeded all that was anticipated or hoped for at the time the Act became law? I do not know the number of allotments at this moment; but I do know that not long ago, according to some Returns which had been collected, the increase in the allotments was something enormous after the Acts were passed. I do press on the Government that whatever else may happen we shall at least be favoured with some justification for the adoption of so wholly novel a principle as compulsory hiring. Sir, I do appeal to the Committee—I would appeal to them upon the grounds of the commonest justice as between man and man in this country—not to submit the owner of one particular class of property in this country to a process which he could only describe as one by which their property was to be taken from them against their consent and against their will without what I hold is the primary obligation of the Government or the State—namely, that of making them an adequate pecuniary compensation.

SIR W. FOSTER

We have had some interesting speeches from hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and those speeches, especially the last, have been addressed to the serious departure we have made. We admit our proposals are new, and we think the very fact that they are new will commend them to a large number of Members in this House who are dissatisfied with the existing means of obtaining land for public purposes. If, Sir, no Government ever made a new proposal we should never make any progress. The right hon. Gentleman himself supported a new proposal in regard to the acquisition of land. The late Government went to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham for that blessed word "compulsion," and they introduced it into their Allotments Act of 1887. But they introduced it into that Act in such a cumbersome and expensive form that they found it would not work, and so they brought in the Act of 1890, in order to make their compulsion more effective. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side are, therefore, the very parents of compulsion on the Statute Book of the country. As to the system of compulsory hiring, we are asked why we have introduced it into this Bill. We have introduced it because it is an inexpensive system, and because it will enable the labourers of the villages to obtain land at less cost than by purchase. Indeed, hon. Gentlemen opposite who are so anxious for the economical working of this Bill in the parishes ought to admire and advocate the hiring system rather than the purchase system. Then, with regard to the question of the leasing of the land, surely it is much better for the landowner, especially if his land is under mortgage, that he should have the local authority for his lessee than the individual labourer or the small holder, for he will have better security for his rent, and will, no doubt, be treated liberally by the Local Authority as to necessary compensation when the lease runs out. Then again, it will enable the labourers to get the land at a much cheaper rent than if they had to purchase from the owners. It is an advantage also that the land should be leased, because in many places the labourers prefer to be tenants of the Local Authorities rather than of any individual. That is a very natural feeling; for it gives them a position of comparative independence, which they are looking forward anxiously for under this Bill. Let us go back for a moment to the other questions which have been put before us. The question has been asked us, what justification have we for the compulsory provision? Now, I do not think it is necessary that I should defend the principle of compulsion, seeing that right hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves placed it on the Statute Book. But the compulsory powers which they introduced are exceedingly difficult to apply. We were told at the time that they were simple and inexpensive. But, contrary to what we were led to expect, the working of those compulsory powers have proved neither simple nor inexpensive, and we seek by this Bill to devise a system which will be simpler and much less expensive. In this respect we have shown a tender regard for the interests of the landowners — a most tender regard, because instead of enabling Local Authorities to act through the County Council we substitute the Local Government Board. We take away the procedure of the Provisional Order made by Parliament, which is in all cases most expensive, and costs several hundreds of pounds when there is an obstinate person to deal with. In fact, this compulsion only refers to obstinate people. When a landowner is willing to give allotments, there is, of course, no compulsion; but an obstinate landowner might fight against allotments by all the means in his power, and run up an intolerable bill of costs, except there was a speedy method of compulsion. We, therefore, do away with the Parliamentary procedure and bring in the Local Government Board. Our proposal undoubtedly means the imposition of another heavy burden on that Department. But we feel that the introduction of the Local Government Board will always enable an appeal to be made against any injustice. The Board is a Public Department, and it can at any time be arraigned in the House of Commons. In any case, it is better that the powers and duties in question should rest on a Public Body responsible to this House, than on a County Council which is not directly represented here. The Mover of the Amendment stated that the powers in the clause are not necessary. That is not so. I will tell you why we think them necessary. They are necessary, because in some places the labourers have been unable to obtain land under the existing Acts, and in not a few cases where they have obtained it after years of waiting they have had to pay an excessive rent. These, I think, are very good reasons why we should seek for a better and easier way for getting the labourers on the land. I can give several instances in which the difficulty of getting land has been very painful to the agricultural labourers. Since I have been in the House to-day I have received information of a village in Suffolk (Stuston) where the labourers have been trying in vain for three years to obtain land. The County Council in this case have been trying to help the labourers to get these allotments, but they have been unsuccessful, because the owners of the land, the trustees of an hospital, have refused to let the land, except on such terms as the County Council could not accept. Take another case. At Melbourne, in Cambridgeshire, an application was made to a Board of Guardians for allotments 18 months ago, and it was only last month that the Board, after much pressure, was induced to make inquiries. In a place in Somersetshire the labourers have been trying for four or five years to get land for allotments; in a place in Warwickshire they had to struggle for more than six years, and in a village in Dorset for upwards of seven years. When we have these instances of delay and difficulty in the way of the labourers obtaining allotments, surely there ought to be some method of making the Act work more quickly. There is a land hunger now amongst the labourers; it is, I think, a very legitimate and a very praiseworthy land hunger, and ought to be satisfied in a more expeditious fashion than the present Act allows. Then as to compulsion, I do not believe that compulsion, if put upon the Statute Book in this or in a more drastic form, will be often put in force, because with the strong compulsion in the background resistance to legitimate demands will not be maintained. The right hon. Member for Bordesley has had some experience of the difficulty of carrying out the purchase of land under the present compulsory system. Speaking in the Debate in 1887, the right hon. Gentleman said— We went through a painful experience in Birmingham under that Act (the Lands Clauses Act) when we went to an expense of £1,500,000 for the purchase of land. Certainly had we known what the operation of the Lands Clauses Act was going to be that enterprise or undertaking would never have been entered into. This is an experience of the expensive methods for the acquisition of land. The Corporation of Birmingham entered on a scheme under the Artizans Dwellings Act for the improvement of an insanitary area, and they would never have entered upon it had they known that the acquisition of land would have been so costly. We say that our method is as cheap as the present method is expensive. All the methods introduced by the Act of 1890 have proved to be expensive. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said I was not quite fair in quoting on the Second Reading of this Bill only one case to show how expensive the present methods for acquiring land are. But it is the only case in which the Act has been applied; and the example has proved so serious that County Councils are afraid to put the Act in force. In that case, in order to get 14 acres of land under the present cumbrous and expensive method, the Local Authority had to spend some £330 or £340 on law expenses alone, because the owner resisted, and the whole cost of the legal proceedings in the case amounted, I believe, to £1,500. That I say is a scandalous condition of things, and shows that compulsory methods ought to be made simpler and less expensive. I do not want to apply them in the most stringent form. On the contrary, I would rather that the whole thing should be done by agreement as between neighbours. [Ironical laughter.] Well, I ought to know my own sentiments better than the hon. Gentleman opposite who interrupt. I have denounced the landowners who have not done their duty to the labourers, and I have denounced your Act because it is ineffective for its purpose; but that is no reason why I should not desire to see this matter settled without a resort to compulsion.

MR. W. LONG

The hon. Gentleman has refused to admit that we are entitled to claim that we have extended the allotments system; and now he claims for himself that he desires that these allotments should be acquired without compulsion.

SIR W. FOSTER

That is a new-question, but I am prepared to meet it. I never admitted that all the allotments granted are due to the Allotments Act. I do not think they are. I believe they are due to the agitation set on foot by the right hon. Member for Bordesley some years ago and carried on ever since. I have information that that is so in many eases. A landlord told me the other day that there had been allotments on his estates for 100 years, that 25 years ago the facilities for obtaining them were not made use of, but that the moment the agitation began there came a desire for allotments. In Scotland, where the Act did not apply, the number of allotments increased in a still greater ratio than in England. Therefore, I am correct in saying that the increase in the number of allotments is not due to the Act of the late Government, but is due to the awakening of the agricultural population to the benefits to be derived from the cultivation of land. That compulsion is desirable is proved by the very Return from which the ex-Minister for Agriculture quoted. We find in that Return that there are 4,000 parishes in which there are no allotments, and 2,000 in which allotments do not exceed a quarter of an acre. That is not a condition of things which ought to exist. If the labourers want more land they ought to be able to get it. Again, I would like to point this out. Land purchased by agreement is generally purchased at a very high price. We all know that whenever land is wanted for public purposes, such as for a sanitary improvement, the price of that land immediately goes up. Why is that? Because there are no stringent compulsory powers in the background to enable the land to be taken at a fair price. What we want is that the price should be such as would be agreed upon, in the words of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, between a willing buyer and a willing seller, with some compensation for disturbance. I have looked over the cases since the Allotments Act came into operation. I find that in certain counties an average of £62 an acre has been paid. Such a price makes it impossible for the Local Authorities to give the land to the labourer at a rent which he can afford to pay. Why should an agricultural labourer pay £4 an acre when the farmer at the other side of the hedge is paying only £2 or 30s. That is the condition of things we have got to remedy, and we say it will be remedied if you put on the Statute Book strong measures for the compulsory purchase of land. I do not think I can do better, in answer to some of the arguments used on the other side, than to quote an extract from a speech, which puts the case most effectively— When the community has to take land for any public purpose it shall be enabled to enter upon its possession at a fair price. That is the real difficulty we have to overcome. That is the crux which stands in the way of our opponents; that is the mouthful which the landowners cannot swallow, although it is the condition which has earned for the promoters of this association charges of robbery and confiscation being made against them. Robbery and confiscation! Why, I should have thought that the terms might rather be applied to those who are not satisfied with the fair price for their property, and who insist upon exacting an extortionate value from the necessities of the community. I confess I have had very large experience of the purchase of property by local authorities, and as far as that has gone in every case that has come to my knowledge the ratepayers have been mulcted of from 15 to 50 per cent. in addition to the real value of the property, and in consequence of the system under which they have to purchase it. It is estimated, I believe, that the railways of this country have cost £50,000,000 sterling over and above the true value of the land which has been taken, and owing to similar causes. What does that mean? It means that at this moment the trade of the country is burdened with an annual tax of £2,000,000 of money, which is the price which commerce pays to landowners for the privilege of improving their property. I think myself the time has come when at all events this form of ransom should cease, and that it should no longer be considered one of the rights of property to go on blackmailing the public wherever their wants and necessities require them to enter into the bargain. I recommend these words of wisdom from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to the studious attention of hon. Members opposite.

MR. BRODRICK

said, that the Secretary to the Local Government Board had made a strong speech, but a speech had seldom been made with less evidence to support it. The hon. Gentleman referred to 4,000 parishes in which the labourers were demanding allotments and could not get them. What was his authority for the statement? Could the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether in any one of the parishes to which he had referred an attempt had been made to supply allotments by means of the existing machinery? If that system had not been tried the failure of the present Act had not been established. Surely an Act ought to be tried before it was condemned as ineffective. He would also ask whether the opinion of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham on this subject was expressed before or after the Allotments Act, 1887?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Before.

MR. BRODRICK

said, he should ask why this opinion had been brought forward to prove that the present system was inexpensive and ineffective, and had failed altogether, when it was delivered before the Act of 1887 came into operation?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Although the opinion was expressed before the Act, the procedure which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham denounced is the procedure which is now in the Allotments Act.

MR. BRODRICK

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had drawn strongly on his imagination in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman's point was that the present procedure had been ineffective and expensive, but he had left out the very important provisions of Section 4 of the Act, which provided that, in the case of vexatious proceedings, Parliament should award costs accordingly to the promoters of the opponents of the Bill. That was the machinery by which vexatious opposition to the granting of allotments was perverted. The Committee should remember that they were not now dealing with any amendment of the Allotments Act, but with a total upheaval of the law of the compulsory acquirement of land. It has been said that the land ought to be obtainable as between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The universal experience of Parliament was that where they introduced compulsion they stopped voluntary action, and he would like to call the attention of the Government to what the House did two years ago. They had a Bill introduced to deal with ranges. The Local Government Board was not the only Department that wished to get rid of the troublesome proceeding of Provisional Orders—the War Office and other Departments were most anxious to attain that object, but the utmost to which the Government had gone was in the case of the Defence Act, but even in the case of the Defence Act by the authority of Parliament it was requisite to have the consent of two Departments, the War Office and the Treasury, and also the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant of the county. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell him it was necessary in the case of allotments, which were being granted voluntarily every day, to adopt a procedure which they would not sanction under the Defence Act for purposes of the realm? The Committee of the House of Commons considered the question carefully with regard to Volunteers, and what was the position with regard to them? At this moment if a Volunteer force was absolutely unable to shoot owing to the absence of a range, they could only proceed under the Land Clauses Act, and, if necessary, by way of a Private Bill before Parliament. He could not help thinking that to dispense with the authority of Parliament in this matter was a most dangerous precedent. Might he ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board what he meant by saying that Parliament would control the action of the Local Government Board in this matter? There would be no appeal to the House of Commons; how could there be?

SIR W. FOSTER

On the Estimates.

MR. BRODRICK

said, that was to take a most convenient method, to discuss all the Provisional Orders on the right hon. Gentleman's salary, and by a Party majority on a Division the whole question was to be settled. The hon. Gentleman was simply playing with the Committee, for he knew perfectly well that was a machinery entirely beneath the consideration of Parliament altogether. He said they were putting a most invidious and dangerous power in the hands of the President of the Local Government Board. They would lay him open to every kind of public pressure; they could not have an inquiry in this House in which Members unconnected with the locality could be heard, but they had an inquiry in camera, when a decision would be given by those who had no local knowledge at all.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

There would have to be a local public inquiry.

MR. BRODRICK

asked why they should not extend the system to the taking of land for other purposes? They had heard a denouncement of the method of taking land under a system of Provisional Orders, and would the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell them that this was the general policy of the Government? He submitted this was a question to be considered as a whole. What was done in the case of allotments ought to be done in the case of the defence of the realm, and to introduce this great change here was a gratuitous overloading of the Bill. It was a challenge to discussion, and made it incumbent on them to endeavour to arouse the attention of the Committee to what they thought a grave error based on the alleged failure of the existing law without any evidence in support of the contention.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, that hon. Members opposite must be a little tender to the Members of the Government on this point; they should remember that what they were discussing now was the general electioneering clause. On this clause all their hopes depended. Failing this clause, there was hardly one of them would be able to say they had secured what they promised. He, for one, hoped this clause would pass, and he would tell hon. Members why. This Bill was full of disappointments, but there was no disappointment that would ever be known to the Liberals equal to the one this clause would bring about. They had heard of the failure of the Act of 1887, and they had had the case of St. Faith's mentioned. It was the only one. [An hon. MEMBER: Quite enough.] Quite enough too, but they were not told that the landlord was fined to an extent of £1,000 for her opposition. That was quite right too, and they would find that no landlord was likely to follow the example of this obstinate woman, who paid for her obstinacy by a fine equal to four or five times the amount of the fee-simple she refused to give up. Why did not hon. Members quote other cases? Fortunately few compulsory eases had been enforced, but why not quote the one in Somersetshire which cost £2 10s., and that included a return ticket of the clerk to London that was quite unnecessary, so that they might really quote the case of Somersetshire as costing about £1. There were one or two cases of that kind, but they did not hear about them. They heard about St. Faith's, and he thought it was a satisfactory one for the supporters of the Act of 1887, as it showed that any landowner who gave unreasonable opposition to the requirements of the locality was very heavily punished for it. They were told to-night that the labourers preferred to be tenants, but that was a mere assertion. Everyone knew that with the best intentions Local Authorities must be very strict landlords, and that while private owners might reduce the rent or remit it altogether, no Local Authority dared do that, therefore from their very position they were the very hardest landlords to be under. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board quoted one case, that of one of the largest Corporations in England. But why was this talk about tenancy so much indulged in by hon. Members? They were afraid to see the creation of a large number of small owners. The independence of the small owner did not suit their book, they would condemn these labourers to be under what must of necessity be the hardest kind of landlords. Then the hon. Member said they had said on the passing of the Bill of 1887 that they had provided a simple and inexpensive method of compulsorily acquiring land. He did not think that was ever said, because everyone knew, or ought to know, that no method of compulsion could be either simple or inexpensive; all compulsion must be expensive. [An hon. MEMBER: Not in Somersetshire.] There was no doubt that land taken under compulsion must be expensive, but must be specially expensive in this direction—that it must always demand a higher rent from the labourers who took it; it was absolutely impossible that land taken by compulsion could be cheap to the labourers. They were told about the difficulties of getting land under the Act of 1887. Of course, it had been the stock argument and stock speech of hon. Members in rural districts that the Act of 1887 had been a sham and had worked badly, and that they were bound to try to make it better. He did not say there were not exceptions, but in almost every case where there were six labourers and upwards who required land they could get it, and he challenged hon. Members to produce cases where any number of labourers who bonâ fide required land had not been able to get it. He admitted there had been delay, but that had come from the fact that the present Sanitary Authorities were not so active as they should be in entertaining the application. That, however, was not the fault of the Act of 1887, because when the Act was passed there was no other authority existing but the Sanitary Authority except Quarter Sessions, and no one would care to put it in their hands. But this Bill created District Councils instead of the Sanitary Authority, and they would find that that would be an accelerating force in carrying out this Act. He understood, and he hoped rightly, from his right hon. Friend that the provisions of the Act of 1887 were not put an end to. If it were, and he said it advisedly—["Hear, hear!"]— yes, but they were to settle this matter and know where they were—and he said it advisedly that if the Act of 1887 and its provisions were interfered with in any way, then this clause, standing by itself, would take away the hopes of labourers acquiring allotments in five parishes out of ten. [An hon. MEMBER: It does not.] Fortunately it did not, and the labourers might be thankful that the powers of that Act were not taken away. It was said that his right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had stated he was in favour of giving these powers into the hands of Local Authorities. Yes, but what authority? The giving it into the hands of a Parish Council was one thing, and the giving it into the hands of the District Council where a Id. rate would bring in from £300 to £1,200 a year was quite another thing. Under the new clause that had been submitted the application to the District Councils was done away with and the Parish Council could apply direct to the London School Board. What happened then? The London School Board required the Parish Councils to go through with the prescribed preliminaries, to advertise, to serve notice upon all concerned to hold a local inquiry. The advertising and printing alone that the Parish Council would have to do would almost swallow up a 1d. rate upon the usual rateable value. The London School Board would have to send down and make a local inquiry, and what had they to do? The Inspector or arbitrator had to award compensation for what? Taking the new clause of his right hon. Friend the arbitrator was to allow compensation for severance, for breaking up old pasture, for a tenant giving up his holding, for other incidents connected with it, for transferring it at the end of the tenancy. Add all this to the cost of the land and see what the labourers would get. Why the clause would never be put in force. Take a parish—and he was speaking of nearly half the parishes of the 13,000 they were dealing with—of, say, 500 inhabitants where the majority did not want allotments, but something like 100 of them did, as the Parish Council was elected by the majority was it likely they would take up this question of compulsory hiring in face of all the expense they would have to incur? If the minority wished to obtain allotments they would have to fall back on the Act of 1887, under which any six labourers might apply and the Parish Council must give them allotments. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if six labourers made application to the District Council, the District Council must send down an Inspector, and when he found that the majority were against it what was he to do? Was he to supply the minority with allotments, and over-ride the wishes of the Parish Council? He feared the right hon. Gentleman had done a serious damage to the position of the labourers who were in the minority, because, under the Act, six labourers or more could make application, and the District Council would be bound to find them allotments; but under the clause as it stood the District Council would find itself between two opposing forces—one a small minority wanting allotments, and the other the Parish Council, elected by the majority who did not care for allotments, and that was a very serious difficulty introduced by this Bill. He would refer hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench to the enormous increase in the allotments since the Act of 1887, and it was impossible to contradict the statement that the Act was becoming more operative every day. It was the drift of the agitators to condemn the Act of 1887, but to say it was a sham and a failure was to say that which did not accord with the facts themselves which came under their notice every day. He contended two things — that this compulsory clause brought forward by his right hon. Friend would be scarcely ever used, and if it should be used it would result in very high prices. The Act of 1887 was in danger, and the labourers' power of getting allotments was greatly lessened by the proposals of the Government, inasmuch as while the Act of 1887 allowed six or any number above six to get allotments, the Government were now setting up an opposing force in the same parish.

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

said, that, while the Secretary to the Local Government Board said a good deal about the wickedness of landlords not giving the land, and the hardships the labourers suffered under in having to pay high prices, he forgot to tell them the thousands of cases in which the landlords had given land at a very low rent. In his own county there was not the slightest difficulty in getting allotments, and they were given at very low rents, with which the labourers were perfectly well satisfied. There was one case of appeal to the County Council, and possibly the hon. Gentleman would hear of it. The labourers could not get the land they wanted, and appealed to the County Council. The land was practically in the town, and was worth £600 an acre for building purposes, and that being the case, it was outrageous to think that the County Council or any other authority should be expected to take that at its high value, and re-let it to the labourers at £4 an acre. There was another point in the hon. Gentleman's speech he should like to notice, and that was with regard to the argument that the labourers would much prefer to be tenants of a Local Board than of a private owner. His experience was quite the contrary. He thought not only labourers, but farmers also, would sooner rent from a private individual than from any Corporation, for the reason that frequently in bad times the labourers' rents for these allotments were forgiven altogether by private owners, or reductions made from 25 to 50 per cent., whereas, if they held from a Local Board, the Local Board would be obliged to take the whole rent, having no power to grant those great remissions which private owners frequently and willingly made. As to the question of taking land compulsorily, they had heard of the great wickedness of the landowners in not giving the land, and of the hardship to the labourers in not getting it; but there was one class which had been ignored altogether, and that was the occupiers. Why should the occupiers be ignored? Frequently in a parish, even in these days, the whole of the land was occupied; and why should the best part of a man's land be taken compulsorily and given to the labourers? Before they took this land compulsorily they ought to consult the farmer and occupier from whom they took it. The land the labourers wanted was that portion which was nearest to the village, and that was usually occupied already by the farmers; and if this power to acquire land compulsorily was given they should find that the piece of land which the farmers most valued, which was nearest to the village, and probably the easiest to work—and which might be a piece of pasture land —would be taken compulsorily from him, and no extra compensation given him. That would be most unfair. He objected to laud being taken in this compulsory way; and if it was so taken, then they ought to give some compensation, both to the owner and occupier for having taken, perhaps, the best part of the farm. The land which would be compulsorily acquired under this Act would be the land nearest the village, which was the most important part of a man's estate, and, certainly, of his farm.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

You will get its full value.

MR. JEFFREYS

said, they got its full agricultural value, but that was not its full value. If they valued a farm they did not value every field, but so many acres at so much. One field differed from another, and the field that probably would be taken by the Parish Council might be the best field in the farm.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

They would have to pay for the best land the best price for it.

MR. JEFFREYS

said, then they would reduce the value of the rest of the farm. When they had a farm made up of fields of different kinds, if they took away one particular field they might spoil the whole farm and seriously interfere with its letting value. He maintained, therefore, if they compulsorily took the best land some extra compensation ought to be paid for it. If land were wanted surely it might be taken by agreement, as it had been in hundreds and thousands of instances already. Why should they put in these arbitrary powers to the Parish Council in regard to purchase? If they were to take land compulsorily it ought to be by a clause under the Bill of 1887. Land had been acquired that way, and, as the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division had said, on very economical terms. If they were to require land by the Compulsory Clauses of this Bill then they might benefit one class, but they would be injuring two classes, who were bound up altogether with the laud. Why they should benefit one class and almost ruin two classes who lived on the laud and by the land he could not understand. He hoped before this clause were passed certain Amendments would be agreed to, including one he had suggested, to the effect that the arbitrator should give such extra compensation as he should think just. He was afraid the valuer would only put the agricultural value on the land.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

What we propose is that the arbitrator should value the selling value of the property, and give compensation for the severance, and from the injurious effects which the taking of the land may have on the remaining property on the vendor. After you have put it down you ought not to be able to pile up another 10 or 20 per cent. for compulsion.

MR. JEFFREYS

said, he rather approved of the new clause of which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice, but he was referring to this clause. They had passed Sub-section (b), which enacted that the arbitrator, in fixing his award for compensation, should not make any additional allowance in respect of the land being compulsorily taken.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

He must have included the severance.

MR. JEFFREYS

said, all that he could say was that they were going to tie the arbitrator's hands, and when the proper time came he should move after the word "compulsorily," the insertion of the words — Such purchase money as he shall think just in consequence of the compulsory purchase. He hoped, before the Committee decided to take land in a compulsory way, both from the owners and occupiers, they would remember that there were three classes who lived on the land—namely, the owners, the occupiers, and the labourers, and that they would not interfere for the advantage of one class at the expense of the others.

MR. E. STANHOPE

The right hon. Gentleman at an earlier stage of this discussion invited us to consider the general principles involved in this clause. [Cries of "Divide!"] We have been discussing it, I think, some hour and a half to two hours, and we are just really only entering on the discussion of the most important principles involved in this clause, and I am surprised at the impatience of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they will not allow us, without some show of irritation, to continue the discussion now. We have, on both sides I think, shown a disposition to extend the allotment system in this country to the best of our ability. I think, Sir, all sides of the House have given expression to a desire to make the existing law operate as far as possible, and, where it seems to fail, to try and improve it in order to make it operative. We on this side of the House are not wedded to the existing system of allotments. What we are bound to do is to ask the Government, before they try to amend the present Acts, to show in what respect they have failed, and how any proposals they make on the subject are calculated to improve the operation of these Allotment Acts. Two questions have been raised in this discussion. First of all, it was the hiring question. We have had from the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly clear statement of his own position with regard to this question and the allotments question. He told us that he did not really understand much of the working of the allotments system in the country districts. He was perfectly frank in that respect, but it seemed to me that he understood a great deal more than his colleague the Secretary to the Local Government Board, and I think, also, if we were to be favoured with the presence of the President of the Board of Agriculture, whose absence, of course, we all regret—especially its cause—I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would add any particular knowledge to that which the President of the Local Government Board possesses on the subject. I am perfectly prepared to take the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and he says we are not entitled to discuss this question at the present moment because he is going to move the omission of that sub-section dealing with hiring. I should like to remind him of what took place on the Local Government Act of 1888. In that Act there were certain clauses proposed about licensing. The Government of the day said they were withdrawn. Did the Opposition of the day say they ought to be withdrawn without discussion? No; they insisted on discussing them.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We wished to keep one clause in.

MR. E. STANHOPE

Quite so; but after we put our Amendments on the Paper, saying we were going to give them up, every one of those clauses was discussed with ample fulness, just as much as though we were going to persevere with them. Upon this subject, of course, we have considered very carefully the proposals of the Government contained in the Bill; but now they have sprung upon us, at two days' notice, totally new proposals which amount to a complete revision of the Allotments Act on this subject. Quite true, we are not going to discuss them now; but I want to say it is perfectly unreasonable for the Government to complain of our discussing the matter now when they spring upon us, at a moment's notice, totally new proposals dealing with the subject. I pass from that to the other question involved in this clause—namely, the intervention of Parliament. That is also new to us. It is intended by this proposal to get rid of the system we have applied in all similar cases of Provisional Orders. I thought the system of Provisional Orders for the compulsory acquisition of land was a deeply-rooted Parliamentary tradition— a tradition to which Parliament was determined to adhere; but I am disappointed in this expectation. Two or three years ago, as my hon. Friend has already indicated to the Committee, there was a proposal on the part of one of the Departments of the State to continue the practice of enabling them to take land without Provisional Orders for the purpose of the defence of the country. Yet that Department had actually to alter its practice altogether, and to propose to Parliament a Bill which was passed afterwards into an Act, by which means the compulsory acquisition of land for this purpose was limited to Provisional Orders to be confirmed by Parliament. What is the objection to the system as it exists at the present moment? The Secretary to the Local Government Board mentioned one or two objections that occurred to him, and one was the dilatory method. Well, Sir, it is, I know, not a very quick method, but he will forgive me saying I am not persuaded that any method of proceeding through the Local Government Board would be any quicker. In either case there has got to be local inquiry. Local inquiry through the agency of the County Council is made in a perfectly careful manner by people thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances of the case; and although undoubtedly the machinery to put that into operation may take a little time, the machinery of inquiry by the Local Government Board cannot be any quicker, and I am confident there is no conclusive ground for believing the machinery of the Local Government Board would be any quicker than the machinery now in existence. What else did the hon. Member say? He said that, according to his experience, the allotment owners preferred to be tenants of a Local Authority rather than the tenants of the great landlords in the country. That is not my experience. On the contrary, everybody on this side of the House knows perfectly well—I do from personal experience—that whereas we should only be too glad to pass over our allotments to the tenants to the Local Authorities, and let them take over the land and let the allotments, in the first place, the Local Authority do not want to take them over, and, in the second place, the tenants do not want to be transferred. That is our conclusive experience, and I venture to express the strong opinion that, so far as our experience goes at present, the tenants do not desire to become the tenants of the Local Authority, but prefer to remain as they are at present. I venture, therefore, to say that no case has been made out for changing the present system to the method proposed by the Government. What they desire is to introduce a new method, not because they think it will be a better method, but because by introducing this clause into the Bill they have got a plausible clause upon which to go to the General Election. I do not hesitate to say that the sum and substance of the clause has no other meaning. It is solely intended to be a means to the country of showing they are better able to deal with the allotment clauses than hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. For my part, I must say that every one of the statements that has been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the present system of allotments cannot be supported by facts. It is not true the labourers cannot get the land. It is true there has been certain delay, and in some cases very much more delay than is necessary; but it is true also that if they had chosen to proceed by the ordinary methods of the existing Allotments Act, they might have obtained allotments years before they have actually obtained them. It is not true that the cost of these allotments is, as a rule, excessive. I do not deny that there may be individual cases where the rent of the allotment has been higher than it ought to be. That, I am sure, is the kind of case everybody in the House desires to get rid of, and we all desire that the cost of allotments should be reasonable. I submit that no evidence whatever has been brought before this House to show for a moment, taking the country as a whole, that the rents of allotments have been excessive, and upon that ground no case whatever has been made for altering the law. These are the grounds upon which I say that the Amendments now proposed by the Government are wholly unnecessary, and I, for my part, am certainly prepared to vote against them.

MR. LOGAN (Leicester, Harborough)

said, right hon. Gentlemen opposite had taken very great exception to the few remarks made by the Secretary to the Local Government Board. He had, no doubt, before this question of the land was settled, they on his side of the House should have to say things which were not altogether palatable to their opponents. It would be easier, of course, to say things only which were palatable to their opponents; but he, for one, felt he had a duty to perform, and that duty was to say in that House what his constituents wished him to say, and if in doing so be had to utter things which were not altogether palatable he would say to hon. Members opposite, in the words of England's greatest thinker, it was not he who said it, but bitter voices outside said it, and these voices would have to be heard in that House whoever else kept silent. The right hon. Member for Sleaford said that no justification whatever had been offered for the compulsory hiring of land under this clause. The greatest justification existed at the present time; and as a justification for this clause he would point to the miserable condition of thousands of men in this country to-day —men who were working for a miserable 10s., 11s., 12s., or 13s. a week with no prospect but the workhouse in their old age. He did not intend to enlarge upon that subject, but he would like to say this: that if every agricultural labourer in this country was to be in a prosperous condition, then he would have to be raised from his present miserable condi- tion of dependence which compelled him to work for the first man that offered him a job at any wage that man liked to offer. Before the agricultural labourer would be in that position in which he (Mr. Logan) wished to see him he would have to have land easy of access—close at his own door; and it was because this clause would give him this that it had his most hearty support. The right hon. Member for Sleaford, in complaining of the compulsory clauses of this Act, said that what he desired to see was common justice as between man and man. That was all they (the Liberals) desired, and that was all the agricultural labourers of England desired. They had recognised the absolute truth of what the London Times in its better days said—that the first charge upon any land is the maintenance of those reared on that laud, and it was because the Government recognised and had embodied that principle in this Bill that it had his hearty support and the support of those he had the honour to represent.

MR. BUCKNILL (Surrey, Epsom)

said, the President of the Local Government Board had never said that the Bill would guarantee to secure land close to the door of every labouring man. That was an exaggeration— and an inaccurate exaggeration. He had never intervened in any Debate in Committee on this Bill, but he did ask permission to make a few observations at the present time, not because he wanted — as some hon. Members seemed desirous to do— to address his constituents through the medium of this House, but because he had a few observations to offer in good temper, and he hoped not in bad sense. The President of the Local Government Board had said, in the best possible good nature, that he honestly believed the present system was dilatory and expensive. If it was dilatory it certainly was not entirely the fault of the machinery, but of those persons who were themselves dilatory in setting this machinery in motion. Again, it had been proved to be not so expensive as some hon. Members said it was, and the machinery the Government proposed to substitute for it would be almost, if not quite, as expensive as the machinery which now existed.

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

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.