HC Deb 19 May 1899 vol 71 cc1034-6
* Mr. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

said the opportunities of bringing questions before the House were so few that he wished to take this opportunity of calling attention to a measure which was mentioned in the Queen's Speech. He alluded to the Agricultural Holdings Act. He wished to question the Government upon this measure, and also to express a feeling which he believed was held very largely amongst the farmers of this country, that the perpetual postponement of this question after its repeated appearance in the Queen's Speech, and after the repeated pledges of the First Lord of the Treasury and the President of the Board of Agriculture was most unsatisfactory. They had a right to enter a very definite protest against the course which had been adopted with regard to this Bill. A very definite pledge was given in the First Lord. of the Treasury's address to the electors of Manchester, and although it was a question on which there was probably more unanimity than on any other question amongst all sections of the House, they had seen this measure postponed year by year and Session by Session, and they had absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that this question would be dealt with in the present Session, and they did not know what lines the Government would proceed upon when they attempted to deal with it. Not only the First Lord of the Treasury, but also the President of the Board of Agriculture had also made himself specially responsible for this Bill to the country. The subject had been inquired into and reported upon two Royal Commissions, and the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture and other bodies who had a special right to be heard in this House had given their views. There was no question which had been so thoroughly threshed out, and the subject had been ripe for legislation for some years. Not only had there been these Royal Commissions, but there had repeatedly been decisions in this House in favour of the measure. A Bill of this description passed its Second Reading in 1895—

* MR. SPEAKER

The honourable Member is now going into the general question of the necessity for legislation upon this subject, and he will not he in order in doing that upon this occasion.

* MR. CHANNING

said he was en- deavouring to show that not only had Her Majesty's Government promised for four years in succession to bring in legislation of this kind, but they had the whole of the material for legislation before them, and there was no excuse whatever for refusing any longer to deal with it. Tie thought nobody in that house would challenge his statement that this question was absolutely ripe for solution, and that Her Majesty's Government had again and again pledged themselves to deal with it. He thought they had a perfect right to protest against the course which had been persisted in year by year. The measure might be proceeded with easily during the. present session, because there was a unanimity of feeling in all parts of the Horse. Not only in this House, but the decisions outside were practically unanimous, and the differences that existed were more in detail than in principle. They had a right to know what Her Majesty's Government's proposals were. Upon this question the assertions and statements of the President of the Board of Agriculture, made in different parts of the country, were not consistent, for in one part of the country he held forth hopes to the agriculturists which were not verified old supported by statements which he had made in other parts of the country. When speaking in Scotland the right honourable Gentleman supported One theory, and when at: Westminster he supported a wholly different one. Therefore they had a right to demand that the Government should introduce this Bill, and allow the House an opportunity either dealing with it in the present session or at any rate of bringing opinion to bear upon it in such a form that Tier Majesty's Government would see on what lines they would have to settle this question in order to produce any satisfaction among the agricultural community. This was a question of political necessity sound economical policy, both in the interests of the landlords as well as that of the tenant farmers. There was one other matter to which he should like to refer. The House was well aware that a question of urgent interest to the agricultural community was now before Parliament in the Food and Drugs Bill, and he wished to express the hope that Her Majesty's Government would approach this questionon—

* MR. SPEAKER

The honourable Member is not in order in referring to a Bill which is not before the House.

* MR. CHANNING

said the only course pursued by the Government had been that of protecting the interests of the land-owning classes, and there was a grave suspicion that if this Bill was further postponed, the protection of the right of the tenant farmer to the improvements which he made in his farm would he endangered. To Her Majesty's Government, who were pledged to protect the tenant farmer, those tights seemed to be of less importance than the interests of the landowning class. He desired to know definitely whether the Government had come to the conclusion not to proceed with this Bill during the present session. He asked them frankly and fairly to place their proposals before the House in order that they might be discussed in agricultural circles during the recess.