HC Deb 21 April 1896 vol 39 cc1385-7

"Nothing in this Act shall empower the forces to enter upon or interfere with (except for the purpose of using authorised roads) any dwelling-house, farmyard, garden, orchard, pleasure ground, nursery ground, or park, or any premises enclosed within the curtilage of or attached to any dwelling-house, or any enclosed wood or plantation, or any other enclosed land, except such other enclosed lands as may he declared to be lands on which the forces arcs authorised to enter, in this Act referred to as authorised enclosed lands."

MR. LUTTRELL moved to insert after "roads" the words, "any common land which is the subject of any Act of Parliament, Scheme, or Provisional Order, having for its object the preservation and protection of such common land or." These commons were generally adjoining large towns, and, therefore, he proposed that they should safeguard the interests of the citizens of these towns.

*MR. BRODRICK

said, they had put into the Bill every kind of provision they could to protect commoners and owners, but this Amendment which have the effect of keeping large tracts of country entirely outside the possible operation of the Bill, and it would be impossible for the local Committee to go over it.

MR. LUTTRELL

said, he was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LUTTRELL moved to omit the words "or park."

*MR. BRODRICK

accepted the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LUTTRELL moved to insert after "dwelling house," "or any lands bearing roots or standing crops." In one, and he thought in all of the Bills for these manœuvres, there was this safeguard that the interests of agriculture, might not be interfered with. They heard a good deal about the depressed state of agriculture, which they understood the Government were anxious to relieve.

*MR. BRODRICK

said, he could not accept the Amendment. There might be a tongue of land of this description running out into the middle of the field of operations, and if this were tabooed it would utterly spoil the manœuvres. There was not the slightest difficulty in assessing damages to crops, and compensation would be paid. In some cases where the crops were damaged, the farmers having received compensation earnestly wished that the forces should come a second time. The commanding officers of the forces had the strongest reasons for not damaging the crops.

MR. J. W. LOGAN (Leicester, Harborough)

, thought it was a new way of relieving agriculture to allow armed forces to march over standing crops.

*MR. BRODRICK

said, the manœuvres would be held too late in the year to pass over standing crops.

MR. LOGAN

said, that was an excellent reason for accepting the Amendment, and he should support his hon. Friend.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Stafford, Lichfield)

said, the Government would have to pay for the damage, and they were thus making a permanent Bill for the taxpayer to pay.

*MR. BRODRICK

said", this was a matter of experience. As a matter of fact, last year certain owners and occupiers had consented to allow troops to go over their land.

MR. LUTTRELL

suggested that the Government should accept "standing crops" without the land "bearing roots." He owned that there was not the same amount of damage done in both cases.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4,—