HC Deb 26 March 1896 vol 39 cc233-5

"1.—(1.) This Act shall, so far as relates to the passing over and occupation of land, be in force within such limits, and during such period, as Her Majesty in Council may by order prescribe, and the limits and period so prescribed are in this Act referred to as the prescribed limits and the prescribed period.

(2.) Not less than three months before the commencement of the period proposed to be prescribed, a draft of the proposed Order shall be sent to the county council of every administrative county wholly or partly within the limits proposed to be prescribed, and public notice of the proposal to make the Order shall be given in such manner as Her Majesty in Council may direct."

(3.) If within thirty days after the publication of the notice aforesaid any petition is presented to the county council of any of the counties affected by the proposed Order against the proposal to make the Order, the draft Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than thirty days on which that House is sitting, and if either House, before the expiration of thirty days during which the draft has been laid before it, presents an Address to Her Majesty against the draft no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order.

(4.) If no such petition is presented, or having been presented is withdrawn, before the expiration of the thirty days first aforesaid, or if on the draft of the Order being laid before Parliament no address adverse thereto is presented, Her Majesty in Council may make the Order."

*MR. BRODRICK

said, it was not intended by the Government that the Bill should be put in force for a long period, and he moved that it should not be put in operation for more than three months at a time.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

, on a point of order, submitted that there should be an Act of Parliament for each particular case. It was possible the Military authorities might seize upon a valuable common, utilised for recreation, and pay a certain amount of compensation, which could have no relation to the injury inflicted upon the public, and could not be distributed among them. It was not at all desirable that the Military authorities should be able to do this simply by giving three months' notice. The House had just refused to allow the promoters of a Bill to take away the rights of the public even on paying compensation. The Military authorities ought not to be able to seize land without coming to the House; of Commons, in order that the merits of the case might be fully discussed. He moved the omission of the words— Her Majesty in Council may by order prescribe" in order to insert the words "may be hereafter enacted.

*MR. BRODRICK

said, the whole question now raised was fully discussed on the Second Reading, and the House by a large majority, not consisting exclusively of the supporters of the Ministry, decided that it was unnecessary that there should be Acts of Parliament in these cases. Indeed, if there had to be legislation, there would be difficulty in carrying on manœuvres at all. There was sufficient protection to the owners and occupiers of land in the fact that an Order in Council must lie on the Table in both Houses for 30 days, and in the fact that the Army Votes would afford several opportunities in the course of a Session of discussing these matters. He sincerely trusted that nothing would lead the House to reverse the decision it had already come to that reasonable facilities should be allowed for the conduct of the manœuvres.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 204; Noes,46.—(Division List, No. 76.)

And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.