SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

HC Deb 08 August 1907 vol 180 cc352-435

As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.

* MR. STARKEY (Nottinghamshire, Newark)

said that in Committee upstairs the Secretary for Scotland promised to make some concessions in regard to Clause 16, but he regretted that these concessions, as they appeared on the Paper, did not altogether cover the difficulty. The clause dealt with a holding becoming vacant when the landlord might under certain conditions— be entitled without the consent of the Agricultural Commissioners to let the holding otherwise than to a neighbouring landhol'er for the enlargement of his holding or to a new holder. The effect of tie Amendment standing in his name was to prevent the land going out of cultivation. It was a very reasonable and modest Amendment. It suggested that if a holding became vacant and the landlord was unable to find a new tenant and acquainted the Agricultural Commissioners with the fact, and if the Agricultural Commissioners were unable to find a tenant or were unwilling to cultivate the land themselves, then the land should return to the landlord to do with it what he thought best. He believed that that was the best way out of the difficulty. They were told that the Agricultural Commissioners were reasonable people, but why should unreasonable powers be given to them in this matter? If they had powers which it was extremely improbable they would exercise, and if they would never insist on a holding being unoccupied and allowed to go out of cultivation, the landlord being paid compensation for his loss, it was surely better that the Agricultural Commissioners should not have those powers at all. This clause belonged to a future period. At present everybody would be desirous of taking a small holding which should shower golden gifts upon the holder. If any impecunious person could obtain a loan for his holding there would, no doubt, be a great demand among all classes to obtain a share in the benefits that would fall on the small tenants of Scotland. When, however, this particular clause came into effect the small holding would be either given up, or the holder would be dead. The small holding might prove not very remunerative; if it had the holder would have assigned it to somebody else. In these circumstances, why should not the landlord have the land and do the best he could with it? It was an unreasonable proposition that the land should be kept out of cultivation, and that the Agricultural Commissioners should be put in the position of a dog in the manger, because they would not let it themselves nor would they allow the landlord to let it. It should be remembered that the rent was fixed as a fair rent, and if a tenant was not forthcoming it was not because the rent was too high, or that the old tenant had been treated with unfairness, but simply because that particular holding had not been successful. In the event of a large number of small holdings being created, some of them were sure to be not altogether successful on account of distance from markets and the reduction in the value of their produce by cultivation. He thought it should be perfectly impossible for the Agricultural Commissioners to insist on the land going out of cultivation, because that would be a most flaring advertisement to the whole countryside of the dismal failure of the small holdings system. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept what he thought was a most reasonable and moderate Amendment, which he now begged to move.

MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)

seconded the Amendment. This clause in the Bill he thought was the most extraordinary he had ever come across in any Act of Parliament. The power of the landlord in dealing with the holding when it became vacant from any cause was entirely taken away from him. The Government said that the landlord was to be compensated for any loss he might suffer. But there was a good deal more involved here than the landlord's loss. The whole question of the general success of the cultivation of small holdings came in. The main point was what was going to be the effect on the neighbouring small holders in the event of the renunciation, removal, or failure of a small holder. They all knew that when a field was allowed to go out of cultivation, thistles and other weeds spread from it to neighbouring holdings. All that the Amendment asked was that if no tenant was forthcoming and it the Agricultural Commissioners did not desire to cultivate the holding the landlord should have the power to take over the land. The scheme of the Bill was an experiment and there were bound to be a considerable number of failures on account of the want of experience of the men who would rush to take up these small holdings.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— 'In page 13, line 34, to leave out from the word 'landlord,' to the word 'Provided,' in page 14, line 3, and to insert the words 'may let the holding to a neighbouring landholder for the enlargement of his holding or to a new holder, but the landlord, if he fails to do so, shall intimate such failure to the Agricultural Commissioners who may, on repaying to the landlord any sum paid by him to the outgoing landholder, let the holding to a new holder at the former fair rent or occupy the holding themselves on the same terms and conditions. In default of notice from the Agricultural Commissioners of their intention to take either of these courses the landlord shall be entitled to resume the holding for such purposes as he deems best.'"—(Mr. Starkey.)

Question proposed, "That the words shall for hwith intimate the fact' stand part of the Bill."

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,) Forfarshire

was not at all sure whether these exact words would commend themselves to the House, but he was sure that some such provision would be desirable. There were two provisions in the clause, the one positive and the other negative. The difference between the proposal and the clause was that, after information had been laid before the Agricultural Commissioners, they were first of all under the obligation to pay to the landlord any sum due to him from the outgoing tenant, and then they were to let the holding to a new tenant, or occupy the holding themselves. That meant that if the landowner failed to find a new tenant, probably with the co-operation of the Land Commissioners, the Amendment of the hon. Member proposed that the Land Commissioners should be specially empowered to find a new tenant. That was a proposal that the Agricultural Commissioners should have to keep the holding themselves if they failed to find a tenant. The Government in Committee resisted this proposal on the ground that the Agricultural Commissioners were not fitting holders of small holdings. He did not think there could be anything more disastrous than to have the country dotted about with small holdings held by the Agricultural Commissioners. The scheme of the clause was perfectly simple and did not embody a dog in the manger policy in cases of removal, renunciation, or failure in consequence of which the holding became vacant. There was plenty of notice to the landlord and the Agricultural Commissioners to find a new tenant. Where that event happened it was at once communicated to the landlord, and the Agricultural Commissioners were empowered to apply to the landlord to fix the term during which the tenancy should go on. They were both interested in the land and they fixed the term during which an offer should be made by a successor to the tenancy. During the vacant period the landlord was compensated for any damage to his interest which had taken place. They thought they had met all the contingencies which might arise, and they preferred the clause in the shape in which they had framed it.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

said that as they in the House found themselves in some difficulty in reading the clause all he could say was, "God help the poor landowners," who, unlike themselves, were not accustomed to reading Acts of Parliament. They were told that this Bill was very simple, but it did not appear to them to be so. Hon. Members opposite not having the Bill in their hands received their statements with incredulity, but if they had the measure before them they would see that their account of it was accurate. He would like hon. Members who thought that the Bill would turn the whole of Scotland into a Garden of Eden to read it. The Amendment dealt with the interregnum during which the new tenant must be discovered. If there was much delay, injury would be done to the holding and to those around it. All that his hon. friend proposed was that the landlord should proceed to let the holding in strict conformity with the provisions of this Act. The landlord could not under the Amendment resume the holding for his own purposes, and could only let it to a small holder. Was not that, he asked, a reasonable and practicable proposition? The right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon the words "at or about the time," and said they provided for every contingency; but, notwithstanding everything that had been said about the Scotsmen by their own countrymen, some of them might take the opportunity of vanishing during the night and leaving the neighbourhood. The landowner, however, remained on the spot with his factor and was interested in the farm being occupied at once, and what was suggested was that the landlord should find a successor under the provisions of the Bill. The Government said, however, that they could not allow the landowner to do this, but if his tenant bolted, he must go to the Land Commissioners in Edinburgh. While hon. Members denounced red tape they were going to add to it. There were miles of red tape in this Bill He could not see why the simple proposal of his hon. friend should not be adopted. If it was suggested that the landlord should resume his original possession he could understand objection being made, but there was no such suggestion, and he could not see why this proposal should not be adopted to provide for the interregnum which must necessarily elapse between the leaving of one tenant and the arrival of another. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman make some wonderful statements but never any so wonderful as that in which he said the Commissioners were suitable people to spend public money on small holdings, to control and administer other people's land, and be the landlords of a whole body of tenants; but they were not fit, according to the right hon. Gentleman, to be responsible for an individual holding in the interregnum between the departure of one tenant and the incoming of another. That was how the succession was to be provided for in Scotland. In England there were many precedents for this. In England there was already a not altogether dissimilar system. There were vast Crown estates spread all over the country which were managed by Commissioners, who had to deal with these cases as they arose, where a tenant departed or died, and the holding became temporarily vacant. Would anybody describe those Commissioners as not being fit to resume a tenancy? Where there was no tenant sitting they must occupy and cutivate. Had the right hon. Gentleman never heard of farms on the Crown estates being occupied and cultivated in similar circumstances by the Crown Estates Commissioners? These men were perfectly fit to occupy and cultivate these holdings, but that was not what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said they were not fit to take them over. There was no one else to do it, and if these Commissioners were not fit to become temporary occupiers of the land then the land was to go to waste, to deteriorate and grow weeds.

MR. SINCLAIR

No.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that it was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say no, but if he had had an ounce of agricultural knowledge he would know that such things must arise, that if a tenant went out and there was not another tenant to take immediate possession the farm would deteriorate and grow weeds, which would not only do great harm to the farm itself, but also to the neighbouring farm. That state of things was bound to arise if it was not provided against. He denied that the landlord was covered by the compensation clause which followed; for that only dealt with the damage done to the individual holding, not to the damage which might be done to the adjoining property. He predicted that before this Act had been three years on the Statute-book some provision of this kind would have to be made. He was astonished that the Secretary for Scotland had not seen his way to accept this reasonable and practical Amendment, although he confessed he ought not to be astonished after his experience on the Committee. This was, at all events, another instance of the right hon. Gentleman's unwillingness to accept a practicable Amendment.

MR. SINCLAIR

said the right hon. Gentleman made rather a fierce attack upon him. He had the Rill in his hand, but not apparently in his head. If he looked down the clause he would find that he was mistaken in his main proposition that the clause did not leave the landlord free to let the land. He had to do other things concurrently, but he was perfectly free so soon as a holding ceased or was about to cease to be occupied to take steps for the letting of the holding. Hi-hoped that on reading the clause again the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw part of his criticism. The effect of the words in the Amendment was the same as that of those in the clause, except that in one case they were negative and in the other positive. The landlord would not only be as free to protect his interests under the new system as under the old, but he would have the assistance and co-operation of the Agricultural Commissioners, who would be interested in seeing that no damage was done and that nothing was running to waste. There was no fear of the contingency contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman of a tenant decamping by night, as he could not do that without losing the compensation which he would otherwise be entitled to claim. He therefore contended that the clause carried out, the object of the Amendment, and he could not accept the Amendment.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)

said that the argument of the Secretary for Scotland depended on the assumption that the present system remained; but the right hon. Gentleman had upset that system. The owner, no doubt, had at present a direct interest in supervising such arrangements as those under consideration; but, so far as he could make out, the owner and his representatives in the future would only have one interest, and that would be in litigation either with the Commissioners or with the tenant. Why should the owner, after he was deprived of the whole power of management and the control of his capital, help, except on philanthropic grounds, to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's scheme? He was bound to say that the clause was absolutely consistent with the Bill, which totally disregarded the maintenance of anything in the nature of responsible management. They knew the difference between an estate properly managed and organised and an estate not properly managed and organised. But the right hon. Gentleman apparently thought that the existing system of management in Scotland, which was kept up at a cost of £250,000 to £300,000 a year, was going to be the instrument to carry out the Bill. He could not rely on that, however, and he had to depend on what he set up in its place—these elaborate provisions which would result in slovenly management, because incapables were to have a kind of hereditary claim on the land, whether owners or occupiers. The land was to be inalienable, and, therefore, the incapable holder could not be got rid of, and they would have two classes, the incapable tenant and the incapable landholder. And there was to be a grant of £65,000 a year in order to carry out the operation of the Bill, and the properly organised land system now existing was to be reduced to chaos. The clause made a change of tenancy as difficult as possible. Before the terms of transfer could be re-adjusted they had to deal with the occupier, to see the owner as to arrears of rent, to see the Land Court or Agricultural Commissioners, and the Small Holdings Commissoner, and all these people had to agree what the conditions were to be before the transfer of the tenancy could take place, while the faithful supporters of the Bill could look upon the land lying derelict with equanimity, so long as the provisions of the measure were maintained. It did not matter what happened to the land under this extraordinary system of procedure. The clause might appear simple in the eyes of those who supported it from the reason that they had never been able to look beyond the crofter tenure, which was a very simple thing, no doubt. Because the system of tenure in the crofter districts was simple, it was anticipated that it would be equally simple in the economic, districts of Scotland. In the crofter districts, the crofters did not move about; there were not those changes of tenancy which they would have under this Bill, wherever it succeeded or wherever it failed; and he had no doubt that what was really at the back of the mind of the right hon. Gentleman was this, that because the crofters did not move about in the crofter districts and in the Highlands the experience would be similar under this Bill in other parts of the country. That was where the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. Whether the Bill proved successful or whether it did not, there would be those changes of tenancy constantly going on in the economic districts, and they ought to have the most careful provisions made to meet that condition. Anything which would simplify procedure under the Bill would have his support, and anything which would tend to modify this clause would be of advantage in the working of the Bill when it came into operation.

SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)

said the Secretary for Scotland had stated that there would be no difficulty, because the incoming tenant would arrange with the outgoing tenant in the future as he did now. But suppose there was no incoming tenant. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that altogether; he took it for granted that the incoming tenant was always going to be produced on the spot. The clause pointed out that the Land Court or the Agricultural Commissioners could relet the holding either for the purpose of enlarging a neighbouring holding or as a new holding. But, if there were no people who wanted to come under this Act, and the existing landholders did not want to enlarge their neighbouring holdings, what was to happen, for both those eventualities were likely to occur? He did not regard the Bill as likely to encourage agriculture or create a demand for new holdings such as the right hon. Gentleman expected. Legislation should not be based on supposition. Under the existing system the landlord would cultivate the land himself until he found a new tenant, and it was to that the Amendment of his hon. friend was directed. Under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme the landlord was to go first of all to the Agricultural Commissioners, who in turn had to go to the Land Court; then an inquiry was to be held, and the Land Court would determine that the landlord might let the holding. How long was that going to take? It might take four or five months. The seed might not have been put into the ground, and the cultivation of the land might have gone to rack and ruin. "Oh," said the right hon. Gentleman, "compensation under those circumstances will be paid," but it was not clear whether the compensation would be paid only from the date when the Land Court arrived at its determination, or from the date when the holding became vacant. But why run the risk of having to pay compensation? The right hon. Gentleman seemed very anxious to pay compensation to everybody. Why not leave the landlord, if he chose, to cultivate the holding? Why take money out of the pockets of the English taxpayers to provide compensation when there was no necessity for it? The Amendment of his hon. friend was as simple as possible, because he desired that the landlord should be in a position to say to the Agricultural Commissioners: "I cannot find a tenant; the land is not wanted for a new holding, nor is it required to enlarge neighbouring holdings; therefore, I have to farm it myself." That was a statement which could at once be sent into the Agricultural Commissioners, who could reply: "You are not to do it; the whole matter is at an end." What could be simpler than that? It provided for eventualities; it saved money—which, after all, was a Scottish desire, unless it happened to be taken out of other people's pockets—and it prevented land from going out of cultivation. His right hon. friend was an expert agriculturist, and he knew perfectly well that if land was left out of cultivation for three months it took seven or eight months to put it right again. Under these circumstances he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.

MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S.E.)

said that, as the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had pointed out, the Amendment did give the landlord some opportunity of cultivating the vacant holding and preventing it from deteriorating, but the right hon. Gentleman's own clause said— Where, by reason of renunciation, removal failure of a statutory successor, or otherwise, a holding has at any time ceased," etc. What did "or otherwise" mean? Did the words mean an economic failure as well as failure to find a statutory successor? A landlord might be unable to find a holder who wanted the land for the enlargement of his neighbouring holding, or as a new holding, and the object of the Amendment was to enable the landlord to step in and keep the land in cultivation, or, as his hon. friend the Member for the Leith Burghs had said, to put it to some other useful purpose. Of course, as the same hon. Member had put it, the right hon. Gentleman was so enamoured of his Bill that he could not see any possibility of failure. But practical agriculturists saw such a possibility. They knew that some times the best farms went out of cultivation for all sorts of reasons, which also might make the small holding a failure. And if any of these small holdings became a failure, it was absolutely necessary for the sake of agriculture that something should be done to keep the land in good condition. Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to see derelict farms dotted up and down the country as the result of hasty legislation, and he hoped that by the acceptance of this Amendment, paralysis of that kind would be prevented. His hon. friend opposite had spoken in rather harsh terms of the Bill. He had never thought much of the measure himself; but he maintained that the right hon. Gentleman might endeavour to simplify the matter by accepting this Amendment which would do no earthly harm to anyone, and would enable the landlord to take possession of the land and prevent its deterioration.

MR. ABEL SMITH (Hertfordshire, Hertford)

said that everyone knew that where a man gave up his holding in the ordinary way there was no difficulty whatever about passing it to a new occupier. These things were easily arranged in Scotland every day. That was under the normal and natural system which prevailed in this country and in Scotland. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that by this Bill they were setting up a wholly abnormal and artificial system, under which, once a new holding was made, it was always to remain a holding. What was going to happen if the new holder did not turn up at the right moment, or if the next neighbouring holder did not require enlargement of his holding? It was obvious there must be an interval, because the clause said that the landlord should not do certain things until he had gone through a certain process. Therefore, there must be a certain interval while the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners were going through that process. It had been pointed out that arrangements might be made within intervals of a few weeks although there was some provision made for compensation it was quite inadequate to compensate not only the owner of the land, but also the neighbouring occupiers, for the damage which might be caused in a short interval. He would like to have some explanation as to who was going to carry on the cultivation of the land during the interval which must inevitably occur.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. URE,) Linlithgowshire

said that he remembered the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin introduced the Agricultural Holdings Bill of 1,900, which embraced Scotland, and that measure introduced by reference at least seven or eight Acts of Parliament. He knew that the House spent days and nights trying to understand those Acts although his right hon. friend told them they were perfectly simple. He thought a little explanation would enable the House to understand this proposal. He admitted that when a small landowner went wrong and the holding became vacant the landlord had as free a hand as if it had been his own land. He could do what he pleased with it if he was kind enough to send a letter to the Agricultural Commissioners telling them that the holding had become vacant. Then it was for the Commissioners to make up their minds whether they would intervene or not. The landlord could act independently and do what he pleased with as free a hand as if this Bill had not been passed; but if the Agricultural Commissioners, after receiving notice, thought it right that the landlord should not resume the holding because he desired to feu it or let it to a neighbouring landowner or a new holder, then the Agricultural Commissioners were entitled to say: "You must not." If the landlord disputed their decision he could go to the Land Court to have the question settled. Assuming that the Land Court said to the landlord: "You must not let this holding to a new holder or a neighbouring landowner," and if he suffered any loss in consequence he would be compensated. If the Agricultural Commissioners, after being notified that the holding was vacant, took no action, the landlord could do as he pleased with it, and no such interregnum would even occur as that which had been alluded to, because during that time the responsible management of the landlord would continue. It had been said that the effect of this proposal would be to destroy responsible management, but his view was that it would increase the landlord's responsibility.

SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.)

said the contention of the Solicitor-General was that this clause was drafted with a view to meeting only normal and not abnormal cases such as had been propounded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin and others. Did the hon. and learned Member mean that there was not and could not be any provision inserted in the Bill to meet such cases as those which had been raised? Did he suggest that such cases would not arise? Surely it was only right that some provision should be made to meet these cases. To his surprise the Solicitor-General said that the landlord would be in exactly the same position under this Bill as now. After that statement the hon. and learned Member preceeded to say that the landlord had got to let the Agricultural Commissioners know in writing that the particular holding was vacant, and then if the Commissioners paid no attention to that intimation he would be allowed to do what he liked. Did the right hon. Gentleman really think that any landlord would put a plough and a pair of horses on a small holding with the Agricultural Commissioners standing over him, so

to speak, ready to come clown upon him at any moment and take away that holding? 'Did the hon. and learned Member mean to say that that was exactly the same position as the landlord was in now? That was absurd. All these proceedings took time and no landlord would even dream of spending money in cultivating and placing labour on that small holding under such conditions. He hoped that even now the Secretary for Scotland, if he did not desire his Bill to be an absolute failure, would see his way to accept the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 64. (Division List No. 383.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Kekewich, Sir George
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Kelley, George D.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Elibank, Master of	Laidlaw, Robert
Alden, Percy	Erskine, David C.	Lamont, Norman
Astbury, John Meir	Esslemont, George Birnie	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.)	Everett, R. Lacey	Lea, Hugh Cecil (Sr. Pancras, E.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Fenwick, Charles	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Ferens, T. R.	Lewis, John Herbert
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)	Ffrench, Peter	Lough, Thomas
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lupton, Arnold
Beale, W. P.	Fuller, John Michael F.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Beck, A. Cecil	Furness, Sir Christopher	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Bell, Richard	Gill, A. H.	Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB' hs)
Benn, W (T'w'r Hamlets S. Geo.)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Maenamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Bertram, Julius	Glover, Thomas	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford	Goddard, Daniel Ford	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Brace, William	Gooch, George Peabody	M'Crae, George
Bramsdon, T. A.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M' Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Branch, James	Gulland, John W.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Brigg, John	Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton	M'Micking, Major G.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Maddison, Frederick
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Marnham, F. J.
Byles, William Pollard	Harvey, WE (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Massie, J.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Micklem, Nathaniel
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Molteno, Percy Alport
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Cheetham, John Frederick	Helme, Norval Watson	Mooney, J. J.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Morrell, Philip
Clough, William	Higham, John Sharp	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Clynes, J. R.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.	Holland, Sir William Henry	Murray, James
Cooper, G. J.	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Myer, Horatio
Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Horniman, Emslie John	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Nolan, Joseph
Cory, Clifford John	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Norton, Capt, Cecil William
Cox, Harold	Jardine, Sir J.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Cremer, Sir William Randal	Jenkins, J.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Crooks, William	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Curran, Peter Francis	Johnson, W. Nuneaton)	O'Grady, J.
Dalziel, James Henry	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Jowett, F. W.	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Pullar, Sir Robert	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Wardle, George J.
Radford, G. H.	Sherwell, Arthur James	Waring, Walter
Rainy, A. Rolland	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Raphael, Herbert H.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Waterlow, D. S.
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Watt, Henry A.
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Weir, James Galloway
Rees, J. D.	Snowden, P.	White, George (Norfolk)
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Richardson, A.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rickett, J. Compton	Strachey, Sir Edward	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Ridsdale, E. A.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Sutherland, J. E.	Williams, Llewelvn (C'rmarth'n
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Thorne, William	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Robinson, S.	Tillett, Louis John	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Roe, Sir Thomas	Tomkinson, James	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Torrance, Sir A. M.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Russell, T. W.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Scott, A. H. (Ash'n-under-Lyne	Ure, Alexander	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Sears, J. E.	Vivian, Henry-	Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Seely, Colonel	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Shackleton, David James	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Balcarres, Lord	Fletcher, J. S.	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)	Forster, Henry William	Remnant, James Farquharson
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Renton, Major Leslie
Barrie, H. T. (Loudonderry. N.)	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gordon, J.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Sheffleld, Sir Berkeley George D.
Bull, Sir William James	Kimber, Sir Henry	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.	Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Valentia, Visconnt
Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Craik, Sir Henry	Moore, William	Younger, George
Dalrymple, Viscount	Morpeth, Viscount
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Nield, Herbert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Du Cros, Harvey	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)	Mr. Starkey and Mr. Abel Smith.
Faber, George Denison (York)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 13, line 35, after the word 'fact,' to insert the words 'in writing.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 13, line 39, after the word 'Commissioners,' to insert the words 'to such amount as may be agreed for, as in case of dispute may be determined by the Land Court.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

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

SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Univertities) moved as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out the words "the Land Court," and insert the words "an arbiter' appointed under the provisions of The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906." He said his Amendment opened up a very-important question which they had tried to raise more than once, but had always been prevented by the operation of the guillotine. The two bodies who were to carry out the provisions of the Bill were the Agricultural Commissioners and the Land Court. He himself would have supposed that the Commissioners were to exercise executive functions, to be a department of the Government sitting in an office in Edinburgh and putting the whole machinery of the measure into operation, going down and visiting the various localities, establishing small holdings, arranging for their equipment, and supervising the operations generally. One would have supposed that the Land Court would have been purely judicial, with no executive functions whatever—a Court merely to hear appeals brought before them by the small holder, the landlord, or the Agricultural Commissioners themselves. He wished to point out that that was very far from being the case. In the provisions of the Bill the functions of the Agricultural Commissioners and those of the Land Court were almost inextricably mixed up Prom Sub-sections (6) and (8) of Clause 7 it appeared that the Agricultural Commissioners were to act in many ways as judges, and that they were also to undertake the main part of the executive functions. Under Sub-section (10) of the same clause the Land Court had a number of executive functions in their own hand. If hon. Members compared line 33, on page 7, with line 13, on page 10, they would see that the judicial and executive functions were inextricably mixed up. When the functions were mixed up in this confused way, why could not the Government leave the matters which were dealt with in the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to the decision of some outside authority? Why not allow the disputes to be decided by the system of arbitration provided for by the Agricultural Holdings Act of last year? Section 30 of the Crofters Act of 1886 contemplated arbitration. It was a curious fact that that clause was included for repeal in the schedule of this Bill when it was first introduced, but that the right hon. Gentleman had since cut it out of the schedule. That clause would remain part of the Crofters Act of 1886 which under this Bill was to be applied to the whole of Scotland. The Agricultural Commissioners and the Land Court were essentially parties to the whole of the administration of this Bill, and it was perfectly obvious that they must constantly be acting together. On the broad principle of judicial fairness and impartiality they should not be the final arbitrators in their own case. If they were not in sympathy they would not work together. Why should not the parties to a dispute be allowed to go to arbitration, which had been largely resorted to, and had been repeatedly recognised by the legislature, instead of leaving the Land Court to be the judges in their own cause. This was a matter of common justice involving the whole principle of fair dealing between man and man. The Government were now introducing a very difficult, unsound, and unwholesome principle. They were denying the landlord who might be affected by this Bill access to the ordinary Courts of Justice with a right of appeal. Why, then, should they not have a really impartial judge appointed in the way contemplated by their own Bill of last session? He begged to move.

MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)

seconded the Amendment. The Secretary for Scotland had never given any sound ground for adopting the principle embodied in the clause.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To leave out the words 'the Land Court,' and insert the words' an arbiter appointed under the provisions of The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906."—(Sir Henry Craik.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'the Land Court' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

Mr. URE

said that none of the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1905 applied to the Crofters Ad of which this Bill was an extension. The hon. Gentleman must see how very inconvenient it would be to introduce two separate tribunals for the purpose of settling disputes under any-one code. They had eliminated the sheriff from the Crofters Act, and in this Bill they confined the settlement of all cases of dispute to the Land Court which worked under this particular code. Hon. Members opposite had frequently complained that the Bilk provided for two separate bodies—the Agricultural Commissioners and the Land Court. Would it be any better to introduce a third by appointing an arbiter under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1906? If a small holder and a landlord had any difference of opinion to be decided by an arbiter, they might have it done under the present Bill. Under Section 30 of the Crofters Act of 1886 it was provided that if a landlord and a small holder had any difference between them, it might be decided by an arbiter, and his decision was recorded in the book of the Land Court or Crofters Commission, and it became in effect the judgment of that Court. That clause was never put in force because the landlords and the crofters had such complete confidence in the Crofters Commission that they never resorted to an arbiter. That clause in the Crofters Act was incorporated in this Bill. It was true that that clause was repealed in the schedule in last year's Bill, but in this year's Bill the repealing enactment was left out. It had been said that it was not easy to separate the functions of the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners. He took it that the functions of the Agricultural Commissioners were administrative and those of the Land Court executive, and in that respect it did not differ from the Sheriff Court, which was not only a legal tribunal, but possessed executive functions. Accordingly the Land Court would not only discharge judicial functions in deciding disputes that might arise between the landlord and the small holder, but it would also have executive functions. It appeared, therefore, to the Government that when there was a tribunal expressly provided for the purpose of decking just such questions as would arise under Clause 16, it would introduce confusion to import a new tribunal altogether in the shape of an arbiter under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1906. He objected to the statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities that the Land Court were Judges in their own case. The members of the Land Court had no cause any more than an ordinary Judge. Surely the hon. Member must see that when a question came before the Land Court as to the amount of compensation that was to be given to the landlord that must be decided in a wholly impartial manner. If the Land Court by a judicial judgment gave effect to the recommendation of the Agricultural Commissioners, was it really fair to say that they were men judging their own cause?

MR. WALTER LONG

said they all agreed that the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman was correct when he said that to adopt the Amendment to incorporate in this Bill an arbiter appointed under the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1906 would be to introduce a third body which was not recognised in this Bill. But he could not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in his view that the introduction of a third body was unnecessary and undesirable. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not attach sufficient importance to the position in which the Land Court was placed in conjunction with the Agricultural Commissioners. The functions of the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners ran together in the most remarkable manner. They must work very largely in unison and in communication one with the other. What was the position? There was the owner of the property who was interested in the land, and there was the tenant who took the holding, and who also had an interest in the land; but where there was a separation of their joint interest there should be an independent individual, with no knowledge of the case except what was stated to him by both sides, who should be charged with the duty of assessing the amount due to the landlord. But the Land Court would be a party to the transaction, and the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman threw a very interesting light on what they had been discussing a few minutes ago. The Solicitor-General for Scotland's explanation of this part of the clause was that throughout this part of the transaction the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners acted together and the landlord would have to look to them in order to take steps to ascertain the amount of compensation he was to receive. His contention was that the decision should be left in the hands of a person who had no connection with the holding except that he was called in to give a judicial decision. Could it be said that the Land Court was in this position? At one moment the matter seemed to rest with the Agricultural Commissioners and at another with the Land Court, and he was quite unable to understand what was the separation of the functions of these two bodies throughout the Bill. These two bodies would take the place and occupy the position of the landlord. What would be the view of hon. Members opposite if it were said that on the determination of a tenancy the landlord should say what was to happen? It was admitted that the landlord was under this Bill to be deprived of the functions of which he had hitherto been possessed and that they were to be transferred, not to the tenant, but to the Land Court and the Commissioners, which two bodies crossed each other's path continually, and it was to one of those two bodies that the House was referring the amount of compensation to be paid. It seemed to him to be inequitable in the highest degree and a denial of those principles of justice under which an arbitration had hitherto been granted, that in the case of a dispute arising in which their interests were concerned these bodies were to be the judges. He urged that it would be in accordance with the principles of justice to leave this question to arbitration, because it was impossible in the circumstances that these bodies should be impartial. On these grounds he respectfully pressed upon the Government that some change should be made in the Bill which would recognise those principles of justice between man and man which had hitherto obtained in questions of this kind.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

said that under the Bill there was transferred to a new official hirer of land a large amount of money in the shape of capital. First of all a" hirer there were the Commissioners, and then they came to the Land Court, which appeared to be constituted practically for the purpose of regulating the capital which came under its purview for the improvement of the state of things in regard to small holdings. What were its functions? The Solicitor-General for Scotland had raised a question as to whether it was worth while creating another authority, and for himself he thought it was not, because there were far too many authorities under the Bill. Last year with great ingenuity they were enabled to make Scot: land ft in with the Land Tenure Bill, which was prepared in the West of England, and by those efforts, for which he was grateful to the Solicitor-General, they were enabled without doing any particular harm to Scotland to obtain an arbitration authority which was perfectly satisfactory and above suspicion. Having obtained that authority why was it given the go-by now? He wanted to know what this Court was going to do and who were the people who were going to do the work. They could enter upon thoroughly equipped land upon which the equipment might be worth more than the whole holding. It was a most extraordinary Court. They had power to take a holding and divide it up, and having taken the place of the owner they had power to fix the letting value and select the tenants who were to make use of another man's property. They had perfect freedom to select any one man for the use of another man's capital. They fixed the rent and then fixed on the tenant who should get a loan. They then got loans for which the Treasury provided and of course their first duty was to see that the Treasury suffered no loss. It seemed to be thought that these quasi-judicial authorities would be more judicial than a Judge, but even quasi-judicial authorities were only human, and this body, which was to be the managing director in a forced co-parthership of three, was to divide up the values of the interests. Ultimately these quasi-judicial authorities were to be Judges in their own cause. He knew that the State would lose a good deal of money by these transactions, and as a land owner he thought he saw his way to make a little money at the expense of the State by the creation of these small holdings with the assistance of the State. But they had in that House to consider the interests of the State, and he objected to the manner in which money was to be provided for this scheme. He was moreover concerned to point out that this was not a judicial authority and that no one who had to come under the Land Court could accept its decisions as being without bias. He had no doubt the Prime Minister would call this, as he did the extension of the Crofters Act, quite a small matter over which they had wasted a large amount of time. Without going into the injustice of the measure, which was a great matter, why, having under another Act set up a semi-judicial tribunal which was to cost £30,000 a year, they should seek to alter it in regard to this Bill passed his comprehension.

MR. A. DEWAR (Edinburgh, S.)

said the question as to whether the Land Court should be the Judge in questions arising between the landowner and the landholder had been made the point of a general attack upon the Bill by the hon. Member for Leith. The impression made upon his mind by the speech of the hon. Member was that this tribunal was corrupt or incompetent. Those were the two great faults of which complaint was made in a Judge. But he would point out that this tribunal was not yet appointed. He had noticed that the right hon. Member for South Dublin had studiously safeguarded himself in the matter. What he said was that they were too much mixed up with the matter from the beginning to have an unprejudiced mind. That was opposition which he could understand. But, after all, when the matter was looked at reasonably, these Commissioners and the Land Court must be drawn from men of standing and they must be trusted. That was the theory of the Bill. Surely they could be trusted in these matters. If an arbiter were to be called in at the last moment it would only cause additional complexity. There was no provision in the Bill for an arbiter, and who would pay him if he were called in? Whoever called him in would have to pay. Under the Bill there would be these functionaries who would be paid by the State, and this would be part of their duty. He did not think that any one of the functions that had been put upon them would necessarily prejudice them to such an extent as to make them incapable of acting fairly. What they required in justice was speed and cheapness. These Land Commissioners were familiar with every detail and could do the thing at once, but to call in an arbiter would only mean complexity, delay, and expense. He hoped the House would not accept the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

thought the hon. Gentleman had entirely mistaken the point at issue. He himself was one of those who thought that to take property out of the open market and place it in the hands of a tribunal to be dealt with was a proceeding full of risk and one which ought to be avoided. To place the whole of the land of Scotland in the hands of such a tribunal for the purpose of being dealt with was a dangerous operation which ought not to be approved by this House without good reason. But if the Government were going to embark on that perilous undertaking let them at least see that the tribunal upon which they were going to confer these powers was a judicial tribunal and not an administrative department. That was plain common sense, but it was not the policy of the Government. In the Bill of last year the Land Court had no existence, but having brought it into this Bill it would have been wise on the part of the Government to have seen that the functions given to it were judicial only, and that the gentlemen forming it were given no such responsibilities as would bias their judgment or cause them to depart from the strict path of impartiality. When they said that this Bill had created such bias they must not be taken to say that the gentlemen to be appointed would be either incompetent or corrupt. There was one point that had not been asked and which ought to be asked Why had not the Government, having created a Land Court, given to that body none but judicial duties? That was the course which would have been adopted by statesmen, but the Government had done nothing of the sort. In fact he had never seen such English as that which appeared in this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: It is Scottish.] His hon. friend had no right to insult the country to which he belonged. He absolutely denied that it was Scottish, and it hardly deserved to be called English. He would read the particular clause they were discussing— Where by reason of renunciation, removal, failure of a statutory successor, or otherwise, a holding has at any time ceased or is about to cease to be held by a landholder, the landlord shall forthwith intimate the fact to the Agricultural Commissioners, and shall not, if the Land Court on their application after hearing the landlord so determine, and during such period and subject to such conditions (which shall include payment of compensation to the landlord by the Agricultural Commissioners in respect of any loss arising out of such determination) as the Land Court may prescribe, be entitled without the consent of the Agricultural Commissioners to let the holding otherwise than to a neighbouring landholder for the enlargement of his holding, or to a new holder. The masters of style in his country would be heartily ashamed of perpetuating such a sentence as that. When they had gone through all this farrago and tried to find out what it meant, was it not clear that it made the Land Court the Judge in its own cause? In the first place it was made the instrument of a costly and philanthropic endeavour to change the land system of Scotland. These gentlemen had cast upon then the responsibility of carrying out as cheaply as might be a philanthropic system of land occupation in Scotland. Who would allow a philanthropist filled with enthusiasm for mankind to fix the value of property which he took for the purpose of carrying out his ideas? Who had ever suggested it? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell him whether the following propositions were incorrect. The Land Commission were to be entrusted by the Government with the carrying out of a philanthropic social reform as cheaply as they could. In the process of doing that they were themselves to value the property which they took. He submitted that that was putting them in a judicial position which they would never allow to a philanthropist, however pure and elevated his motives. They would not allow a philanthropist to carry out his admirable and excellent projects by taking at his own valuation another's property which stood in the way of the attainment of his objects. But that was exactly the position which the Government was taking up under this Bill. It was a wholly unnecessary position. They might have said that they did not want to bring into existence this judicial body; but having erected it, they made it judicial, and then threw on it functions outside its judicial capacity. That could not be good legislation. They had brought into existence two sets of individuals, the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners. They might have given everything that was administrative to the Agricultural Commissioners, and everything that was judicial to the Land Court. If that had been done in the Bill, it would have removed to a certain extent his objections, and enabled the measure to be carried out by the Government in a statesmanlike manner. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that they had attempted to do that, for if they looked through this clause to find its meaning in the mist of all these parentheses and sub-clauses, they would find in the section they were discussing that the administrative and judicial functions were mixed up as between the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners. For reasons into which he need not enter, the Government had taken care that certain clauses should not be discussed, and on this clause, which they were enabled to discuss by the fortune of circumstances, a point had been raised which, however, was not more apparent in this than in previous clauses that had been excluded from debate. They had endeavoured to explain the point, but no answer to it had been vouchsafed from the Treasury Bench; no answer had been given by the Solicitor-General who had immediately preceded him. He gathered from the Secretary for Scotland that he thought he had not given a fair account of the Bill; certainly the Solicitor-General had not shown that it was not fair, and he waited for the Secretary for Scotland to show that he had in any way exaggerated what it must be admitted was essentially a vice in the Bill.

MR. SINCLAIR

said the observations of the right hon. Gentleman had gone somewhat wide of the Amendment under discussion. He was delighted to learn from the hon. Member for Leith Burghs, so far as the creation of new holdings were concerned, that the landlords were not to lose money. He was delighted to have that admission from him. There was no more powerful critic of the Bill than the hon. Gentleman, and it was comforting to think that the compensation sc) liberally provided for in this and other clauses of the Bill would not be called upon to the extent anticipated by some critics of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the lack of opportunity to discuss the subject raised by the Amendment. As it happened, the division of the Bill into three days had been so carried out as to bring into prominence the two clauses which dealt with the subject—Clause 7, which dealt with the whole of the arrangements for the creation of new holdings, and Clause 16, which was now under discussion, and in which the relations between the Agricultural Commissioners and the Land Court came under review. Under this clause, if existing holdings passed from the present control of the landlord to the future control of the landholder, the Land Court would have no say as to what holdings should pass to the new tenants. The Land Court would have the duty of fixing the rent, it was true; but this duty had already been carried out in other countries and in Scotland itself with complete satisfaction by a tribunal such as the Land Court proposed under the Bill. His hon. friend had made it perfectly clear that the functions of the Land Court were judicial and not administrative. Let them take Clause 7 under which the creation of small holdings was carried out. The Land Court were brought in under that clause in connection with disputes between the landlord and the Agricultural Commissioners. Was not their function judicial where they decided disputes between two parties as to the transactions to be carried out by them? He failed entirely to see how the Land Court could be regarded otherwise than judicial in that direction. They had no administrative duties; they had no funds at their disposal; they had no interest in the matter; they had no rent I to receive from the holdings; they were simply in the position of a judicial authority to settle any matters of dispute between the landlords and the Agricultural Commissioners. There would be hundreds of new holdings created of which the Land Court would have no cognisance whatever. Everything tended to show that the Land Court was likely, to be the most experienced and authoritative body of the kind in Scotland. In the first place, they would have an experience which was unrivalled in such matters. The Government would be responsible for their selection. They were responsible for the selection of the Crofters Commission, and on the part of the landlords and on the part of the tenants it was true to say that other arbiters in Scotland had nothing like the confidence and authority possessed by the Crofters Commission in relation to their duties. It was possible, he submitted, that what had been done before could be done again. Men would be selected for this purpose who would be properly qualified, and who would possess an experience rarely open to other people. It was possible to take another view, he submitted, but he held that experience tended to show that the Land Court would deal justly as between the interests committed to their charge, and it was really not open to the objection which had been urged that it was not a judicial authority. His hon. friend had pointed out that the judicial authority of the Land Court was necessarily executive, because it had to formulate orders which it must see carried out. That was true of not only the Land Court under this Bill, but of every Court; therefore, the judicial authority in that sense was always an executive authority. So far as administrative duties were concerned they belonged to the Agricultural Commissioners, who would be allowed a discretion in expending this money. Another point was as to registration. The registration of the holding was made under the authority of the Land Court, who were bound to see the provisions of the Act in that respect complied with. It was on their authority that entries would be made in the book, and they were the judges whether holdings were or were not entitled to come within the Act. In that respect and in all other respects the Land Court had a purely judicial and executive authority; they had nothing whatever to do with administration. The Government could not depart from the attitude which they had taken throughout this Bill, that in the place of the arbitrator under the Agricultural Holdings Act they had put the Land Court which exercised his functions.

MR. LAMBTON

said his right hon. friend and the hon. Member for Leith Burghs had pointed out that the compensation to be assessed by the Land Court was compensation on the determination of the tenancy. They would have to decide what compensation was to be paid, and that compensation was to be paid on their own decision, so that, under the words of the clause, the Land Court had to decide to do a certain thing, and then they said, arising out of their own decision, what compensation was to be paid. He agreed with the Leader of the Opposition that it was a most extraordinary clause. He maintained that the compensation would be compensation arising out of their own decision. There was no other way of reading the clause. He would ask the Lord Advocate whether it was purely a judicial function that the Land Court should assess the compensation arising out of their own decisions?

* MR. MOLTENO (Dumfriesshire)

said the constitution of this Court followed the rule of all other Courts, which was that where the State had any controversy with an individual to be decided an independent person should determine the matter. They never allowed the State to proceed with all its force against an individual, and such points were always settled by an independent judge. That was exactly what was proposed in this case. The Agricultural Commissioners were the body who prepared and were responsible for the scheme. They came into collision with the landlord and the Land Court was then called in to decide between the Commissioners who wanted this thing done and the landlord who did not want it done. He saw nothing in any of these clause which derogated from the position that the person deciding between the parties was perfectly independent.

* SIR HENRY CRAIK

said the speech of the Secretary for Scotland astounded him on account of the ignorance he had just shown of his own Bill. He would pass over his extraordinary statement that there was no real distinction between the executive and the judiciary. That statement was calculated to make them reconsider the elementary principles of constitutional law. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the whole of this administration was in the hands of the Commissioners, that the Land Court were not concerned, and that they would never be moved by anything but judicial motives. Had the right hon. Gentleman forgotten what was contained in Sub-section 10 of Clause 7, which provided that— (10) The Land Court shall thereafter determine, with due regard to the provisions of the Landholders Acts, and by order or orders declare:—(a) In respect of what land, if any, specified in the scheme, holdings for new holders may respectively be constituted, and up to what date the power to constitute them other" wise than by agreement may be exercised; (b) what is the fair rent for each new holding; (c) what land, if any, specified in the scheme is to be excluded therefrom, and (d) whatever else may be necessary for the purposes of adjusting the rights of all parties interested in or affected by the proceedings. After those points had been deter-mined, then, and then only, the administration of the Act began and the Agricultural Commissioners came in and exercised their powers. If as a consequence of their action a dispute arose and a question of compensation had to be settled, could the right hon. Gentleman stand up and tell them that the Land Court would come in at that stage for the first time, and without any previously formed bias? Before the Agricultural Commissioners could lift a finger the Land Court must decide what land might be used and what holdings might be created. That was as plain as words could make it, and it was enough to prove that the Law Courts were parties to the previous proceedings, of the results of which they were to be the final judges.

* MR. BEALE (Ayrshire, S.)

said there was nothing unusual in allowing a Court to assess the damages which a person suffered in consequence of its own order. In all interrogatory relief by way of injunction relief was given upon the terms that the man who sought the relief should pay damages, and they were always assessed by the Court that made the order. If it was not an easy matter they sent it up to a referee, and that was a course which would be entirely open to the Land Court under this Bill. He did not see that there was any danger at all in leaving this in the hands of the Court which made the order.

SIR F. BANBURY

said the case put forward by the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken seemed to him to be quite beside the issue. This clause clearly meant that the Agricultural Commissioners must apply to the Land Court, and the contention that the Land Court only came in when the landlord had a dispute with somebody else did not arise. The Agricultural Commissioners must apply to the Land Court who might make a determination. If on that determination a loss arose then the Land Court assessed the damages. That was

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Kekewich, Sir George
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)	Kelley, George D.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Laidlaw, Robert
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Duckworth, James	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)
Alden, Percy	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Lamont, Norman
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)
Astbury, John Meir	Elibank, Master of	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Erskine, David C.	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Balfour Robert (Lanark)	Essex, R. W.	Levy, Sir Maurice
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Everett, R. Lacey	Lewis, John Herbert
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)	Fenwick, Charles	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Barnes, G. N.	Ferens, T. R.	Lough, Thomas
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Ffrench, Peter	Lupton, Arnold
Barry RedmondJ. (Tyrone, N.)	Findlay, Alexander	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Beale, W. P.	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Beauchamp, E.	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert	Fuller, John Michael F.	Maclean, Donald
Beck, A. Cecil	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Bell, Richard	Gill, A. H.	Macpherson, J. T.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Benn Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt	Glover, Thomas	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Callum, John M.
Berridge, T. H. D.	Gooch, George Peabody	M'Crae, George
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Bottomley, Horatio	Gulland, John W.	M'Micking, Major G.
Brace, William	Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton	Maddison, Frederick
Bramsdon, T. A.	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Mallet, Charles E.
Branch, James	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Brigg, John	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Marnham, F. J.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	Massie, J.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Micklem, Nathaniel
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Haworth, Arthur A.	Molteno, Percy Alport
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Byles, William Pollard	Helme, Norval Watson	Mooney, J. J.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Morrell, Philip
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Henry, Charles S.	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Higham, John Sharp	Murray, James
Cheetham, John Frederick	Hobart, Sir Robert	Myer, Horatio
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Hodge, John	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Clough, William	Holland, Sir William Henry	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r
Clynes, J. R.	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Nolan, Joseph
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W	Horniman, Emslie John	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cooper, G. J.	Hudson, Walter	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Idris, T. H. W.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Cory, Clifford John	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Cowan, W. H.	Jardine, Sir J.	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Cremer, Sir William Randal	Jenkins, J.	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Crooks, William	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Crosfield, A. H.	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Curran, Peter Francis	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Radford, G. H.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Rainy, A. Rolland

quite a different thing from the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because the loss arose through the decision of the Land Court. The thing was absolutely absurd when put into plain language.

Question put.

The House divided:—Aves, 236; Noes, 72. (Division List No.' 389.)

Raphael, Herbert H.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Waterlow, D. S.
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Watt, Henry A.
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)	Snowden, P.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Richardson, A.	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)	Weir, James Galloway
Ridsdale, E. A.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	White, George (Norfolk)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Strachey, Sir Edward	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd	Sutherland, J. E.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Robinson, S.	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Rose, Sir Thomas	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Williams, Llewelvn (Carmarth'n
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Thorne, William	Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
Rose, Charles Day	Tillett, Louis John	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Rowlands, J.	Torrance, Sir A. M.	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Russell, T. W.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne	Ure, Alexander	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Sears, J. E.	Verney, F. W.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Seddon, J.	Vivian, Henry	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Seely, Colonel	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	Yoxall, James Henry
Shackleton, David James	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Wardle, George J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Sherwell, Arthur James	Waring, Walter	Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)	Pease.

NOES.
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Faber, George Denison (York)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Balcarres, Lord	Fell, Arthur	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Fletcher, J. S.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Forster, Henry William	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Boyle, Sir Edward	Gordon, J.	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Helmsley, Viscount	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Starkey, John R.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hills, J. W.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Starff'sh.
Cave, George	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.	Hunt, Rowland	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore.	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Younger, George
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Craik, Sir Henry	Moore, William	Alexander Acland-Hood and
Dalrymple, Viscount	Morpeth, Viscount	Viscount Valentia
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Du Cros, Harvey	Nield, Herbert

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON moved an Amendment substituting for the second paragraph of Clause 16, which deals with the payment of compensation by the Agricultural Commissioners to a landlord for damage or injury under certain specified heads caused by the constitution or enlargement of a holding otherwise than by agreement, a provision that "compensation shall be payable to any landlord or occupier for any loss such landlord or occupier may prove to be due to the action of the Land Court or of the Agricultural Commissioners." He said the Amendment would give a very simple form of claim which should be satisfied where the land had been equipped by the owner. If the owner incurred any loss through experimental work under this measure in connection with the creation of small farms, he ought to be compensated. The view held by most hon. Members was that experimental work would be carried on on a considerable scale. The provisions for the compensation to be paid by the Land Court for what it took in the making of new holdings were not such as need alarm any owner, but, on the other hand, at the termination of a tenancy, if an owner had to take over the fixtures of a small farm there would be considerable risk of loss. Whether the loss was large or small, it should be made good by the Land Court. They had no business to conduct public experiments at private expense, as would be the case in the circumstances he had indicated if no compensation was to be paid by the Land Court. He would be the first to support in the general interest experiments which were properly and profitably conducted, but under this scheme there would be inevitable loss. If the Land Court was to be an independent judicial authority, it should be given a free hand in regard to the payment of compensation. If that were done, a great deal of the opposition to the Bill would disappear.

MR. ABEL SMITH ,

in seconding the Amendment, said the words proposed to be inserted had a great advantage over the words in the Bill in that they would secure compensation not only to the landlord but also to the occupier. If the new authorities set up by the Bill were going to take portions of existing holdings, it was highly probable, he thought inevitable, that serious damage would be done to the present occupiers of farms. In every part of the country there was bad land and good land, and it was not likely that for the purposes of the small holdings the Agricultural Commissioners or the Land Court would want to take the worst land. It was highly probable that they would want the best. It was well know that a great deal of inferior land had been brought into cultivation by farmers who occupied better land adjoining. If the Commissioners came along and fixed their eyes on good land at the bottom of a hill, they might take it and leave the present occupier in possession of the inferior land on the braes, and in that way he would suffer considerable loss.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 3, to leave out from the word 'that' to end of clause 16, and insert the words 'compensation shall be payable to any landlord or occupier for any loss such landlord or occupier may prove to be due to the action of the Land Court or of the Agricultural Commissioners.'"—(Mr. Munro-Ferguson.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'where under the provision of the landholders Acts, the holding was' stand part of the clause."

MR. URE

said the Government could not accept those words because they imposed too vague and general a charge on public money. In the Prime Minister's clause which the hon. Gentleman proposed to amend ample provision was made for full compensation being paid to the landlord for the loss he might suffer on account of his parting with the land for the purpose of small holdings. The House would see that the clause which had been introduced into the Bill in compliance with the Prime Minister's pledge, provided that compensation should be paid under three heads first, where the value of the land was affected in consequence of the new holding being carved out; secondly, where there had been liabilities imposed upon the landlord in consequence of the new holding having been constituted; and thirdly (by a later Amendment which by the permission of the House he would refer to), where there had been nonpayment of rent due to the constitution of the holding. That meant that the Agricultural Commissioners might be liable to pay a full year's rent to the landlord if he lost a full year's rent in consequence of the constitution of the holding. It had been limited to one year's rent, because, until a full year's rent was due, the landlord could not remove the tenant from the holding, but after a year's rent was due he had it in his power to turn the tenant out. If he allowed the tenant to remain for any good reason, the loss of rent was not due to the constitution of the holding, but to an arrangement which he had made without the knowledge of the Agricultural Commissioners, and in consequence, it might be, of the landlord's benevolent action towards his tenant.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

said that his original Amendment, which was more complicated than that now proposed, had been intended to cover all cases. But he had proposed it as it now stood in case his original Amendment should not be reached. There were other parts which were not covered by the three heads mentioned by the Solicitor-General and he still thought that his proposal was not the simplest. As regarded the creation of a new holding he had admitted freely that the compensation provided in the first instance was sufficient.

Amendment negatived.

MR. YOUNGER moved an Amendment to make the clause applicable where land was acquired by agreement as well as compulsorily. He raised this question in order to see what was the extent and value of the promise made by the Prime Minister. As the Solicitor-General had stated, this clause was extremely restricted in its character, and granted compensation only in cases where the holding had been formed otherwise than by agreement, that was to say, by compulsion. He was sure that it was the desire of the promoters of the Bill that every encouragement should be given to the formation of small holdings by mutual agreement, and that compensation should also be paid when a new holding was constituted or enlarged by agreement. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman at present in charge of the Bill had any authority to extend the clause, or whether the matter had been considered since he had put his Amendment on the Paper. But it appeared to him that the landlord and the future tenant would be almost compelled to arrange for compulsory terms being imposed upon them, although they were otherwise willing to come to an agreement, for the purpose of allowing the landlord to get compensation in the event of failure. He thought his Amendment would be a great improvement of the clause and would not place any serious barrier against new holdings being formed.

MR. J. F. MASON (Windsor)

seconded the Amendment. The clause they were now discussing would, he contended, impose a hardship on the owner, because it took from him the right to deal with the land as he thought fit. In the second part of the clause a distinction was made between holdings formed compulsorily and those formed by agreement; and where the holding was formed by agreement the landlord would lose the benefit of the clause. It would drive landlords to resist the working of the Act, and force on the constitution of small holdings by compulsion, so that the landlords might get the admittedly considerable benefits of the clause. That would be an embargo to the creation of small holdings by agreement.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 4, to leave out the words 'otherwise than,' and insert the words 'either compulsorily or.'"—(Mr. Younger.)

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,) Hawick Burghs

said he was sorry that the Government did not sec their way to accept this Amendment, for the reason that there were provisions in Subsection (8) of Clause 7 for carving out new holdings, which was a cardinal feature of an arrangement of this kind. The carving out of a new holding was in the first place to be done by agreement between the landowner and the Agricultural Commissioners. He quite agreed that it was advisable not to put any embargo on such an arrangement; but the view of the Government was that by the scheme of the clause no such embargo would be imposed. A reference to Sub-section (8, Clause 7, would show that a scheme was to be prepared which covered the entire transaction, and that that scheme was to be remitted to the landlord and tenant in order to have their assent When that essential condition had been complied with they hoped that the financial arrangements would be completed, and the new holder, when he came into possession, would enjoy certain statutory rights. If the parties could not agree then the compulsory powers came in and the tenant was put on a statutory ground. A landlord might agree to negotiate, but when he saw the scheme he might prefer to be treated compulsorily. It seemed to him that the Government had provided for everything, and that a scheme having been settled upon it must be treated as compulsory.

SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.)

thought that the speech of the Lord Advocate strengthened their arguments against the proposals of the Government. The Government based all their hopes on the co-operation of the landlords, and now the right hon. Gentleman came down and put a premium upon the

landlords breaking the agreement. He hoped that in order to obtain the cooperation of the landlords the Government would accept the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 231; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 390.)

Ridsdale, E. A.	Snowden, P.	Weir, James Galloway
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	White, George (Norfolk)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Strachey, Sir Edward	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Sutherland, J. E.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Robinson, S.	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Roe, Sir Thomas	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Rose, Charles Day	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Rowlands, J.	Tillett, Louis John	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne	Torrance, Sir A. M.	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Sears, J. E.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Seddon, J.	Verney, F. W.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Seely, Colonel	Vivian, Henry	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Shackleton, David James	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)	Yoxall, James Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Waton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Sherwell, Arthur James	Wardle, George J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Waring, Walter	Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Waterlow, D. S.
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Watt, Henry A.

NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.	Du Cros, Harvey	Nield, Herbert
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Faber, George Denison (York)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Balcarres, Lord	Fell, Arthur	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Fletcher, J. S.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Forster, Henry William	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Bowles, G. Stewart	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Helmsley, Viscount	Starkey, John R.
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Cave, George	Hills, J. W.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.	Hunt, Rowland	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Keswick, William	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Valentia, Viscount
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore.	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Younger and Sir Samuel Scott.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Craik, Sir Henry	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Dalrymple, Viscount	Morpeth, Viscount
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Muntz, Sir Philip A.

MR. SINCLAIR moved an Amendment to provide that compensation to the landlord in certain cases should be payable for, inter alia, "non-payment of rent in respect of the holding." He said the House had had a discussion on the previous evening upon the point which the Amendment sought to cover, and it was owing to that discussion that the Amendment was put down. It was just possible that a small holder might become bankrupt and fail to pay his rent; that the holding would become vacant and the landowner would be unable to obtain the rent due to him during the period of vacancy. The Government had endeavoured to meet that by these words, which he hoped would be satisfactory to hon. Members opposite, who had discussed the point on the previous evening.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 9, after the word 'through,' to insert the words 'non-payment of rent in respect of the holding or.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

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

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)

expressed his satisfaction at the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to meet the views of hon. Members on this point. All he wished now was some explanation of the words "constituted as a holding," which were said to be the governing words of the clause. If those were the governing words of the clause the Amendment would result in giving only one year's rent. In the Amendment which he had moved on the previous evening, he had, as the right hon. Gentleman would see, provided for the payment of two years rent, which he thought was a far better proposal than that, of the Governmen. They were told that the landlords were not a strictly benevolent race, but if it were laid down that the landlord, who give to a tenant who was in arrear with his rent a benefit beyond what would be covered by one year's rent, would not be entitled to compensation beyond the amount of one year's rent, the effect would be to make the benevolent landlord as extinct as the dodo. He felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman would see that there was a point to be considered here. The additional liability would be very small, and he thought it would meet his point if the right hon. Gentleman made the compensation run up to the amount of two years rent instead of one, which he thought would be the effect of his Amendment.

MR. SINCLAIR

said the governing words of the clause, as had been said, were "constituted as a new holding." As the hon. Gentleman was aware, when over a year's rent was due to the landlord the crop was liable to be taken by him. Under the words he now proposed there would be a discretion left in the Land Court to have regard to the special circumstances of a particular case. He thought the strict interpretation of these words would limit the compensation to one year's rent.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that, while he agreed with his hon. friend, he recognised the difficulty which arose in this matter owing to the connection between this Bill and the Crofters Act. But the lamentable result to which his hon. friend had referred would inevitably follow. One result of this Bill would be to a large extent to divorce the landlords' interest from the soil, but that they could not help. The time had passed for considerations of that kind.

The question now was how far this new sub-section went towards redeeming the pledge given by the Prime Minister on I Second Reading. His objection had always been to the tribunal which had to assess the damage, and this sub-section was to meet the case of the landlords. It seemed to him that the question of damage ought to be remitted to another tribunal, but he advised his hon. friend to accept the Amendment as a fair compromise, although it did not go so far as could be wished.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 11, after the second word 'of,' to insert the words 'or the payment of compensation for.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SINCLAIR moved to add the following words at the end of the clause:—"But nothing in this proviso shall apply to the case of a holding ceasing to be held by a landholder by reason of resumption by the landlord or by reason of the sale of the holding to the landholder." In the case of resumption by the landlord they had simply an instance of the landlord asserting his rights under the Bill and fulfilling the conditions of ownership. The other object was to make sure that similar results applied to the case where the holding was sold to the landholder. The object of the Bill was to allow such action to be unfettered in every way.

Amendment proposed— In page 14, line 14, at the end, to insert the words 'but nothing in this proviso contained shall apply to the ease of a holding ceasing to be held by a landholder by reason of resumption by the landlord or by reason of the sale of the holding to the landholder.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

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

MR. WALTER LONG

said he did not see why the Amendment was necessary at all. In the first place, where the landlord exercised the right of resuming the tenancy, how did the question of compensation arise at all? Compensation was paid for damage done to the landlord upon the creation of the small holding, that was to say, where his property was taken to create a small holding, or where one was already in existence in connection with which damage had accrued to him. The Prime Minister had assured them that if any such case occurred provision would be made for compensation. All that had been done. The difficulty could not arise where the landlord resumed possession. The thing was res acta; it was over. The resumption by the landlord referred to a period at a much later date, after all these transactions had been closed and compensation had been made. Therefore, unless some reason was given, he should object to the Amendment on the ground that the words were unnecessary, and that words which were unnecessary might prove a source of danger. As to the second part of the Amendment, his objection was altogether of a different kind. There he thought the Amendment was unjust, because it referred to the sale of the holding to the landholder, but the landlord did not participate in the transaction; he was not even consulted. He did not know what provisions there were in the Bill requiring sales; so far as his knowledge went this was the first time the question of sale was referred to in the measure at all. What was the contingency sought to be met? It was quite evident there was nothing to deal with except the resumption by the landlord after it might be ten, fifteen, or twenty years. Obviously in connection with the actual resumption there could be no claim for that, because the landlord became possessed of his own property. The first part of the Amendment was unnecessary and the second unjust.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment probably erred on the side of extreme caution, and dealt with a case that would not be likely to arise. But he would point out that there was nothing to prevent the right of resumption by the landlord at any date. They might have a sudden development of the neighbourhood; coal might be discovered, and a new pit sunk. They did not wish to interfere with the right of the landlord to resume instantly. That necessity might arise even during the first year of the holding, and what they wished to provide for was that before there was a resumption, at all events the whole of the claims, while the relation between landlord and tenant still subsisted under the scheme of the Bill, should be settled. They wanted simply to provide for a settlement of the claims during the currency of the tenancy, and while the relation of landlord and tenant continued. As to the second part of the Amendment it was not open to the objection which the right hon. Gentleman thought. He quite admitted that it was a remote case they were providing for, but it might happen that during the early period of the tenancy the tenant might come into cash and wish to buy the holding. The landlord would then sell the holding to the landholder, and there was nothing to prevent his doing so on any terms he liked.

MR. WALTER LONG

By agreement?

MR. THOMAS SHAW

By agreement. The case he was assuming was supposed to take place at an early period. It would be a pity to have that transaction concluded, leaving undetermined a loss incurred before the date of that transaction. The case was a remote one but he thought it was safe on the whole that while the relation of the parties as landlord and tenant still continued all matters should be settled during the currency of the term and not after the transaction.

MR. LAMBTON said the question of sale to the landholder was raised upstairs. He would like to ask the Lord Advocate whether the words of the clause were sufficient to give the landowner this power. Section 18 referred to the Act of 1886, and under Section 2 of that Act there was no power given to the landlord to resume for the purpose of sale; he could only resume for some reasonable purpose having relation to the good of the holding or of the estate, or in respect of the letting value of the land. There was no provision in the Crofters Act giving power for the purpose of sale to anybody. He wished to know whether the words of the Bill made clear this power of resumption.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

replied that, resumption for sale was not in any of the Acts. If the landlord wished to sell he just sold. He meant, that if landlord A sold his property to B, then B became the owner of the land with all A's rights. The new buyer came into the place of the seller with all the landlord's rights.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. J. F. MASON (Windsor) moved to Amend Clause 17 by providing that "when the Land Court, after application by the landholder, has fixed the fair rent the landholder shall not be entitled to renounce his tenancy for a period of seven years thereafter unless the landlord agrees to accept such renunciation at any time prior to the expiry of such period.'" He said that this Clause was perhaps the most unjust and unfair clause of the whole Bill. It simply enabled the Agricultural Commissioners to get out of a difficulty on the back of the landlord. Section 7 of the Act of 1886, to which it referred, was a very short section contained in three lines and referred to the landlord's renouncing the tenancy. He was not surprised that the draughtsmen seeing the pecuniary difficulties which were likely to fall to the Agricultural Commissioners, tried to draft a proviso to add on to that short section to enable them to get some degree of security for their money. But the section took no cognisance of any money that might be due to the landlord. It simply stated that the landholder should not without the consent of the Land Court be entitled to renounce his tenancy if his liability to the Agricultural Commissioners was not wholly discharged. He ventured to think that the draughtsman could hardly be said to have seen the effect of that section at all. It simply meant that the Agricultural Commissioners in order to be secured for their money were going to saddle the landlord with a tenant, who, by hypothesis, because he was in financial difficulties, might be assumed not to be a successful farmer. He might probably be a bad farmer, and yet he was to be saddled upon the landlord against his own will and against the will of the landlord because he owed money to the Agricultural Commissioners. The chances of their recovering the money were perhaps not in the least improved by their doing this, and it seemed to him to be an unnecessary injustice to the landlord, who would be obliged to keep an undesirable tenant who was not in a position to pay his rent any more than he was able to pay his debts. He thought it was a most unwise and most unjust thing to attempt to get security in this way at the expense of the landlord and at the expense of the holding, which would be deteriorated. The Amendment changed entirely the sense of the clause. It was a proviso which prevented the landholder, after he had had his rent fixed, from breaking his bargain by throwing up his holding for a certain period unless he had the permission of the landlord. It was only just that when a rent had been fixed for seven years it should be binding on both parties. They might safely assume that if the landholder wanted to leave his holding it would not be in the interests of the landlord to retain him against his will, and that part of the proviso would not be taken advantage of. The draughtsman did not seem to have realised the disastrous effect of this proposal upon cultivation and upon the landlord himself. It was unwise, as well as unjust, to attempt to get security in this way at the expense of the landlord and of the land itself.

MR. MUNRO PERGUSON

seconded the Amendment. As the clause stood it furnished a kind of burlesque. A man, because he owed the State money, was short of money, was to be fixed on the land. This was one of the clauses carried under closure in Committee, and it was an example of the kind of provision which made the Bill intolerable to any one accustomed to practical work in agriculture.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 17, to leave out from the word 'that,' to the end of the clause, and insert the words 'when the Land Court, after application by the landholder, has fixed the fair rent the landholder shall not be entitled to renounce his tenancy for a period of seven years thereafter un-less the landlord agrees to accept such renunciation at any time prior to the expiry of such period.'"—(Mr. J. F. Mason.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the first word 'the,' in line 21, stand part of the Bill."

SIR F. BANBURY

commented on the ludicrousness of the idea of keeping a man who was a failure in the business in which he was failing. This proposition "took the cake" if he might be pardoned a colloquial expression; and the Amendment was fair and reasonable. The clause provided that if a man owed money to the Agricultural Commissioners he was not to be allowed to leave his holding. If common sense had been brought into the drafting of the Bill it would have provided that when a man had made a failure of a profession or business the best thing to do was to get him out of it. That had always been his idea of business. It was absurd to keep a man in a position in which he had failed, because he might take up something else and prove successful. That had turned out to be the case in regard to an hon. and learned Member opposite who was now a most distinguished lawyer. Some people had the idea that land was a gold mine, and that the moment they were put by the State in possession of forty acres of land belonging to somebody else they would become prosperous. His hon. friend had moved an Amendment which said that the landlord might come to an agreement with the man who had been a failure. The Agricultural Commissioners would no doubt lose money, but they would only be in the position of a great many other people who had advanced money upon an unsuccessful venture. In starting these pseudo-philanthropic enterprises the Government surely did not think they were not going to lose money. They were sure to incur loss, and they should have arranged what they would do in such an event. In Scotland they had a system of land tenure lasting for nineteen years. He remembered that Mr. Gladstone laid great stress upon that fact, which, in his opinion, was the best sort of tenure they could have in regard to land. If that was the case it followed that the rent should not be altered during the first seven years. He supposed it was intended to give some sort of return to the landlord for the capital he had invested in buildings. He was not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman would be inclined to accept the second part of the Amendment, but he saw no reason why he should not accept the first part, which seemed to him to be absolutely essential for the successful working of the Act.

MR. SINCLAIR said the Amendment was based on misapprehension. Several incorrect statements had been made concerning the clause, one being that the subject matter had not been discussed in Committee. Under the Crofters Act a crofter was entitled, on one year's notice in writing to the landlord, to renounce his tenancy. That remained. The clause did not touch it. All it did was to recognise that the Agricultural Commissioners might have an interest in the holding, so that if a tenant sent a notice to his landlord giving a year's notice a similar notice should be sent to the Commissioners, so that they might be aware that he had renounced his holding. Surely that was entirely proper. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who was a viligant guardian of public finance, would surely agree that a notice of this kind should be sent to the Agricultural Commissioners. That was all this clause did in the first place. It then became a matter for the landlord and the Commissioners to decide whether this tenant should be allowed to carry out his intention. The only effect of the clause was to call in the discretion of the Commissioners as to whether or not the tenant should be allowed to renounce. If a tenant was an ineffective and incapable man, surely the sooner he was got rid of the better. But the Amendment suggested that this incompetent tenant should be kept for seven years unless the landlord agreed to accept the renunciation at any time. That was an unworkable and impracticable proposal, and it would be a much more unsatisfactory provision than that in the clause. If properly safeguarded in the public interest, the provision for facilitating renunciation was a useful one. It was not proposed in the interest of bankrupts. There might be satisfactory tenants who wished to go to larger holdings. Under the Crofters Act men had frequently changed to larger holdings. This renunciation clause was a perfectly innocuous and wise one. It insisted that the Agricultural Commissioners should be called into consultation with the view to protecting the public interest when a tenant gave notice of renunciation. The Amendment would really tend to prevent the landlord from getting rid of an unwilling or unsatisfactory tenant, and that would be to the injury of the holding and of the Agricultural Commissioners. He was, therefore, unable to accept the Amendment.

MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

said that after all the discussions in Committee and on the floor of the House the Secretary for Scotland entirely tailed to understand his own Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the power to renounce a holding had been frequently taken advantage of under the Crofters Act. That had been done principally for one specific purpose, and that was to get out of being a crofter. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] He maintained that that was so. Many of the crofters had been grievously disappointed at the conditions obtained under the Act, and they desired to resume the friendly relations with the landlords which existed previously. They, therefore, renounced their tenancies as crofters and took leases. Under this Bill leaseholders would be included, and, therefore, there would be no opportunity for a man renouncing his holding as a yearly tenant; he would be bound to be a small landholder whether he liked it or not. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Agricultural Commissioners were to be enabled to prevent a small landholder from renouncing his tenancy. That was not so at all. All they could do was to fix upon the land a most undesirable class of small landholders—men who had not wholly discharged their liabilities to the Commissioners. The desire of the Government seemed to be to anchor on the land the most unsatisfactory and unpromising class of tenant so long as the liabilities to the Agricultural Commissioners were not wholly discharged. The right hon. Gentleman said the reason of that was the public interest—that money was still owing to the public. He ventured to say that the public interest was not so closely identified with the few pounds that might be owing as with the proper cultivation of the land. If a small landholder who entered on a bad bargain and incurred certain liabilities was to be tied down to the holding there would be a certain risk of the land deteriorating and thereby more harm than good would be done. The Amendment was most reasonable, for he did not think any responsible landlord would undertake to spend money on a holding which could be given up on one year's notice. If a man got his rent fixed for a period of seven years for a holding which might be part of a farm in a high state of cultivation, he might make a good profit for two or three years, and then throw it back on the hands of the landlord. That was not a course of conduct which could be beneficial to agriculture generally throughout the country, or conducive to the welfare of the scheme proposed in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had not put forward one solid argument against the Amendment.

*SIR SAMUEL SCOTT said that there was a class of tenants known in the agricultural districts as wreckers. The right hon. Gentleman in supporting this measure invariably pointed to the success of the Crofters Acts, but it should be remembered that the conditions in the crofting counties were entirely different from those in the Lowlands. The right hon. Gentleman had contended that it was only right that the Agricultural Commissioners should be able to prevent a tenant renouncing his tenancy, because they had an interest in the holding. From the first, the Secretary for Scotland had said that there was no principle of dual ownership in the Bill. And yet the right hon. Gentleman came to the House and gave them a very excellent illustration of dual ownership as created by the Bill. What was the position under this clause? It was that if the small holder desired to renounce his holding, under Subsection 7 of the Act of 1886, as amended by Clause 17 of this Bill, he gave notice to his landlord, and if he owed the Agricultural Commissioners any money, the Agricultural Commissioners could come in and refuse permission to that tenant to renounce his holding. Therefore the position was this: that an unwilling tenant gave notice to his landlord that he wished to renounce his holding, and although the landlord desired to get rid of him, he could be prevented by the Agricultural Commissioners. That was to say, this man would be planted on the landlord, he would have no interest in his farm, and naturally he would farm badly in order to force the landlord to get rid of him under other clauses. That was one of the many gross injustices.

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Erskine, David C.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Essex, R. W.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Esslemont, George Birnie	Laidlaw, Robert
Astbury, John Meir	Everett, R. Lacey	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Fenwick, Charles	Lamont, Norman
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Ferens, T. R.	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Barnes, G. N.	Ffrench, Peter	Lehmann, R. C.
Beale, W. P.	Findlay, Alexander	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Beauchamp, E.	Fuller, John Michael F.	Levy, Sir Maurice
Beck, A. Cecil	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lewis, John Herbert
Bell, Richard	Gill, A. H.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Bellairs, Carlyon	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Lough, Thomas
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt	Glover, Thomas	Lupton, Arnold
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Berridge, T. H. D.	Gooch, George Peabody	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd	Grant, Corrie	Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Maclean, Donald
Bottomley, Horatio	Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Brace, William	Gulland, John W.	Macpherson, J. T.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Branch, James	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	MacVeigh Charles (Donegal, E.)
Brigg, John	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh	M'Callum, John M.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	M'Crae, George
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	M'Killop, W.
Byles, William Pollard	Haworth, Arthur A.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Hazleton, Richard	M'Micking, Major G.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Helme, Norval Watson	Maddison, Frederick
Cleland, J. W.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Mallet, Charles E.
Clough, William	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Clynes, J. R.	Henry, Charles S.	Marnham, F. J.
Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Higham, John Sharp	Massie, J.
Cory, Clifford John	Hobart, Sir Robert	Micklem, Nathaniel
Cowan, W. H.	Hodge, John	Molteno, Percy Alport
Cremer, Sir William Randal	Holden, E. Hopkinson	Money, L. G. Chiozza
Crooks, William	Holland, Sir William Henry	Montgomery, H. G.
Crosfield, A. H.	Horniman, Emslie John	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Dalziel, James Henry	Hudson, Walter	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Hyde, Clarendon	Myer, Horatio
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Idris, T. H. W.	Napier, T. B.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh. S.)	Jardine, Sir J.	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Jenkins, J.	Nolan, Joseph
Duckworth, James	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Elibank, Master of	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

that existed under the Bill. He was very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not accept the reasonable Amendment of the hon. Member for Windsor. It was said that the interests of the landlord and the Agricultural Commissioners were the same, but he would point out that the interests of the landlord and the Agricultural Commissioners might be entirely different. The landlord's interest would be to get good cultivation for his farm; the Agricultural Commissioners' interest would be to extract the last penny from the tenant.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 41. (Division List No. 391.)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Shaekleton, David James	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Waterlow, D. S.
Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)	Sherwell, Arthur James	Watt, Henry A.
Pirie, Duncan V.	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Weir, James Galloway
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Silcock, Thomas Ball	White, George (Norfolk)
Radford, G. H.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Raphael, Herbert H.	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Snowden, P.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)	Stanger, H. Y.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Richardson, A.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Rickett, J. Compton	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Ridsdale, E. A.	Sutherland, J. E.	Wills, Arthur Walters
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somers't, E.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Torrance, Sir A. M.	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Robinson, S.	Ure, Alexander	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Roe, Sir Thomas	Verney, F. W.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Vivian, Henry	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Rowlands, J.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	Yoxall, James Henry
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Sears, J. E.	Wardle, George J.
Seddon, J.	Waring, Walter

NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Fell, Arthur	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barrie, H. T. (Londondcrry. N.)	Fletcher, J. S.	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Forster, Henry William	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bowles, G. Stewart	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Cibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Starkey, John R.
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Helmsley, Viscount	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Cave, George	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hills, J. W.	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Collings, Rt Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)	Hunt, Rowland	Valentia, Viscount
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, N.)	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. James Mason and Mr. Abel Smith.
Craik, Sir Henry	Nield, Herbert
Dalrymple, Viscount	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

MR. SINCLAIR moved to insert the words "except by agreement with the Agricultural Commissioners," affecting the prohibition imposed on the landholder without the consent of the Land Court to renounce his tenancy whilst there is a liability owing by him to the Commissioners. There was no need when the landlord and the Agricultural Commissioners were agreed to obtain the landlord's consent.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 21, to insert after the word that,' the words "except by agreement with the Agricultural Commissioners.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

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

SIR HENRY CRAIK said that the landholder might agree with the Agricultural Commissioners, but where did the landlord come in?

MR. SINCLAIR said that the landholder was entitled to renounce, and if the Agricultural Commissioners had no objection there was no reason for the matter to go further.

MR. ABEL SMITH

said that this would be a useful provision; they ought to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for inserting it and give him great credit for the concession.

Question put, agreed to.

MR. ABEL SMITH moved an Amendment to Clause 18 which provides that the feuing of land for the general development of an estate shall be deemed to be a reasonable purpose for resuming a holding. He desired to insert after the word "feuing" the words "or selling or letting on long leases." He thought it was reasonable that if a landlord wished to feu his land he should have the right of resumption. It was also reasonable that he should have a similar right if he wished to sell his land or to let it upon a long lease. He had always understood that the object of the Party opposite was to free land from the trammels under which it was supposed to suffer so that it should pass easily from hand to hand. It seemed to him, however, that a landlord if he wished to sell his land would, under this Bill, be in a very unfortunate position. He thought that if a landowner wished to sell he should be able to free the land. The same remarks applied to the landowner who wished to let the land on a long lease. An hon. Member said that the system of long leases was entirely unknown in Scotland, but some of his hon. friends representing Scotland said that their experience was not the same as that of the hon. Member. They said that there were many feus and long leases in Scotland, and although he did not desire to define the difference between a feu and a long lease, what he did desire was that if a landlord wished to sell or to let on a long lease he should not be prevented from doing so by the machinery of the Bill.

SIR F. BANBURY

seconded the Amendment, and said he did so if only for the purpose of obtaining some explanation of the problem of feuing. He believed that feuing in Scotland meant letting on a long lease, which extended so long as what we in England called the ground rent was paid. Under those circumstances he thought that once a feu had been created, the power to sell would go from the landlord into the hands of the owner of the feu, and if that was so the words proposed by his hon. friend seemed to him to be unnecessary. He gathered, however, that there was a difference of opinion among Scottish Members as to whether when land was feued it was let on a long lease or whether it was not. Some Scottish Members said it was and some said it was not.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 21, after the word 'feuing, to insert the words' or sale or letting on long lease."—(Mr. Abel Smith.)

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

MR. URE

said he did not intend for the information of the hon. Baronet for the City of London to embark upon a discussion upon the law of Scotland in regard to feus, but he gathered that hon. Members were desirous to have some information on this and other Amendments. This clause dealt exclusively with the landlord's right to deal with his land, and no landlord was precluded from selling his estate merely because there were small landholders upon it, but it would never do to allow the landlord to turn off the small holders because he was going to sell his estate. Long leases did exist, but nobody granted them with a view to developing their estates. Long lenses in Scotland were for ninety-nine years or 999 years, but this was a very unusual form of tenure in Scotland, and it was by no means favoured, and no landlord had been known to develop his estate by long leasing. Feuing was much the better method. Feu-holding was practically equivalent to the sale of the property; that was to say, the feuar was in a sense the owner of the poperty, although the owner remained able to take back his land if the feuar broke the conditions of the feu. But to all intents and purposes the feuar was in possession of the property. He could pass on the feu to somebody else and build upon the land and utilise it in any manner he chose. Feuing was the favourite method of dealing with land, and would, he hoped, remain so, in spite of the observations of his hon. friend.

MR. COCHRANE

said he was sure they were all very grateful for the explanation of the Solicitor-General, and, of course, they all deferred to the highest legal authority. This Bill referred back to the Crofters Act of 1886, and they had to look at that Act to see what the meaning of this measure was. Section 7 of the Crofters Act provided that the Crofters Commission might on the application of a landlord, having been satisfied that he desired to resume possession for some reasonable purpose, and having regard to the holding and estate, allow him to resume possession on his finding land of equivalent value in the neighbourhood for the dispossessed crofters or paying them compensation. The Solicitor-General said it would be an intolerable thing that a landlord who wished to resume possession should turn out all the small landholders, but he could only, as he had shown, do so on the terms that he must find other holdings for the expropriated tenants or pay them compensation. If that was said with regard to feuing should it not also be reasonable for the purposes of sale? He did not think long leases were very popular in Scotland. The Scottish people were rather in favour of as much fixity of tenure as they could reasonably get at their own expense, and they generally preferred that to fixity of tenure as given by the Land Court. He had endeavoured to sweep away the only objection the hon. and learned Gentleman had to this Amendment, and he hoped he had been successful, and that the Amendment would now be accepted.

MR. ABEL SMITH

said the Solicitor-General had tried to persuade the House that it would be a very absurd thing for a landlord to wish to resume possession of land when he contemplated selling it. Rut it was very desirable in the public interest as well as in the interest of the landlord that he should have power to resume possession of land in the occupation of landholders, when he had an opportunity of selling a portion of his estate of which they were in possession, so as to be able to sell the land free of incumbrances. The hon. Member for Leith had called attention to a case earlier in the evening, where a sale had taken place of land on which certain crofters had fixity of tenure, with the result that after the completion of the sale the purchaser had to go to the Court and get the purchase money reduced because he had purchased the crofters as well as the land.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON

said that so far as he had gathered, the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that resumption for the purposes of sale would not be a reasonable cause for resumption.

MR. URE said it would not be resumption at all.

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON said the Crofters Act clearly presupposed that the landlord might resume possession for the purpose of using the land himself. It would be a most unreasonable thing to sell an estate with small holders upon it, and it was only natural that a landowner before selling his estate should desire to clear the small holder off. If the view was right under the Crofters Act the landowner was entitled to do that if he gave the small holder suitable compensation or another holding. The point he wished to put particularly, however, was the case of a sale to, not a private owner, but a public authority. Let them take the case of a public authority which desired to purchase an estate for the purpose of making a reservoir. The landlord might be compulsorily made to sell. In such a case had he the power to resume under this Bill or not, and if he had not, had the public authority which purchased the land, power to clear the holders off?

MR. URE said it could not be denied that it would be a great disadvantage in certain circumstances to have small holders on an estate which it was desired to sell. But he could not admit that any owner who desired to sell his estate, either to a private owner or a public owner, was entitled to break the leases on that estate. This Bill gave the small holders fixity of tenure, and put them in the same position as if they occupied under a lease, and the landowner was not entitled to break the conditions of a lease except by arrangement and agreement with the leaseholder. Of course, if the land was sold compulsorily to a public authority, the small holder might have to go, but in the case of a compulsory sale to a public authority the sale was for the public benefit, and in cases of that kind private interest must give way.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR HENRY CRAIK said they had had a very powerful argument from the Solicitor-General in favour of not disturbing for the sake of sale or any other object the tenants on an estate. The hon. and learned Gentleman had appealed to the usages and long traditions of Scotland in favour of the feus, but the more he had urged his argument the more clearly he had proved that feus were a production of Scotland, inherent in its soil, associated with its history, bound up with its agricultural progress, and things which everyone must admire. Clause 18 of this Bill allowed the setting aside of the new landholder and the landowner to resume on account of feuing; but it immediately afterwards seriously curtailed the right of such resumption. "For the general development of the estate" was a most uncertain and vague definition. One never knew where it might not be said that this was not for the general development of the estate. It might be that feus had been granted in a locality close to the sea, and the landowner under this Bill would be prevented from contributing to the general prosperity of the locality by establishing a good sized coast township owing to the fact that there were feus there with which that township would interfere. Why limit it in any way? Was there the least likelihood that the fen would be granted without good reason? And besides that, was it not in the interest of fixity of tenure that they should develop the growth of these peasant proprietors who were so likely to increase the general prosperity of the country? They should come as near as possible to proprietorship, and nothing came so near proprietorship, without involving the whole of the conditions of proprietorship contained in this Bill, as the Scottish feu. However good their new landholders might be, they were never so good as the feu-holder who had a moderate amount of rent to pay, who had no debts, who could dispose of his holding by bequest or inheritance, or in any way he pleased, without any of the conditions which attached under this Bill. Why not develop this holder, to whom the Solicitor-General had alluded as one of the great causes of the development of agriculture in Scotland? Why not encourage the feuar in every possible way by omitting those vague and uncertain words "for the general development of the estate"? The feuars were the counterpart of the old peasant proprietors of England, they were indigenous to the Scottish soil, they had done more than anyone else in Scottish economics to develop Scottish small holders; they were free from all complications as to mutual claims and compensations to which the new landholders would be subject under this Bill; and he thought that they should remove every possible vagueness or curtailment of the right to resume, and let the small holder give way to one who was a better member of the body economic and a highly developed agriculturist. He therefore moved.

SIE. F. BANBURY

in seconding the Amendment, said that this question had been raised in Committee upstairs, and they had been told by the hon. Gentleman opposite that feuing was of great advantage to the people of Scotland; therefore he was in favour of doing something that would benefit the industry. It seemed to him that the clause had the intention of encouraging feuing by the inclusion of the words "general development of the estate," but it was so uncertain what would be considered "general development" that unless the people who were desirous of feuing were prepared to go through an endless course of litigation, no feuing would result, and therefore he was in favour of the omission of the words, as proposed by his hon. friend. It must be remembered that a person might become a small landholder owning 500 acres; they had been told that there were holdings of as much as 1,000 acres, of which the rent was £50 a year; therefore, the holder would become a small landholder under this Bill. He did not take such an example; he took a holding of 300 or 400 acres. There had been an interesting discussion in Committee in regard to the feuing holdings of Arran. It was said that the small landholders there made their rent by letting their houses in the summer season to visitors. They were told that the island of Arran was one of the most beautiful spots in the world, and it had been pointed out in Committee that unless they were very careful, hotels and villas might be erected there. It seemed to him that the small landholder's farm of 200, 300, or 400 acres might, for the accommodation of visitors to Arran from Glasgow and elsewhere, be used for the erection of villas or hotels or cottages. If they took 300 or 400 acres out of an estate of 20,000 or 25,000 acres for the purpose of feuing, was it for the general development of the estate? He thought that a very pretty argument might arise before the Land Court, where he presumed counsel would be allowed to appear for the parties. Where a property was on the coast, or by the shores of a lake, it would be difficult to prove that 300 acres taken out of it for the purpose of feuing in the way he had described was for the general development of the estate, especially if the Solicitor-General for Scotland was in the case and took the side that it was not for the development of the estate. He thought that after hearing the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, were he a Judge of the Land Court he would find it very difficult to hold that it was for the general development of the estate. It was because they desired to limit all these sources of litigation as far as possible that he had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 28, to leave out the words 'for the general development of the estate.'"—(Sir Henry Craik.)

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

MR. URE

said the hon. Baronet bad supported the Amendment on the ground that it would diminish litigation. He had no unreasoning antipathy to litigation himself; he knew of no more admirable way of settling disputes. He regretted to add, however, that the practice before the Crofters Commission had been confined exclusively to members of the local bar. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow University had said that he ought to accept the Amendment because he had on a former occasion said that feuing was for the development of agriculture in Scotland. If he had ever said that feuing was for the development of agriculture, then either he, or the hon. Gentleman who said he heard it, must have been suffering under temporary mental aberration. Feuing had never been the means of developing agriculture, but it was an admirable method of developing suburban villas, and far be it from him to say anything against that admirable system of land tenure which had been handed down to them through centuries. Suppose a landlord granted a single feu on a particular piece o£ ground, where he wished to have a villa, and that plot was occupied by a small landholder, was it to be said that he should be entitled to turn out that small holder? He thought that that would be a most objectionable thing. Why should the small landholder be turned out? Why should he have to make way for the feuar? What better was the feuar than the small landholder? Why should they give the small landholder security of tenure and then, having found that another man was desirous of building a villa on his land, immediately proceed to turn him out? If the landlord was desirous of having the small landholder's ground, it was his business to go to the small landholder and make an agreement under which for proper consideration the place could be taken over by the feuar. The words in the Bill were imported from the Crofters Act. It had been found during twenty years that there had been no difficulty in interpreting them. Their object was to enable a landlord to develop his estate and to make the best possible use of it. That was the whole object, he thought, of all the Land Acts, namely, to make the very best possible use of what had been called the national territory, Whatever view they took, they would not authorise the landlord to turn out the small landholder, in order to import the small feuar, but if the Land Court were satisfied that it would be for the general advantage of the estate that the landlord should be allowed to make a change by feuing, then, of course, the landlord would have to pay compensation to the small landholder whom he turned out.

Question put, and negatived.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) moved to insert in line 28, after the word "estate," the words "or raining or quarrying or other purposes connected therewith." Under the Crofters Acts the landlord was allowed to "enter upon the holding for any of the purposes following," and mining and quarrying were mentioned. They had not had my explanation from the law officers of the Crown whether that meant resuming possession of the holding. It seemed to him that the language used in the Bill which dealt with small holdings for England put the matter in plainer language, and showed that that was one of the purposes for which the landlord had power to resume possession. The question was whether the words in the Crofters Acts, as a matter of fact, gave power to resume possession, or a concurrent power to use the holding for the purpose of mining or quarrying. He would like the Solicitor-General's opinion as to whether or not the words he suggested would make the matter clearer. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 28, after the word 'estate,' to insert the words 'or mining or quarrying or other purposes connected therewith.'"—(Viscount Helmsley.)

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

MR. URE

assured the noble Lord that the words he had proposed were quite unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 14, line 28, to leave out the word 'shall,' and to insert the words 'or the occupation of a holding, being his only landed estate, by a landlord for the purpose of personally residing thereon, shall respectively.'"—(Mr. Ure.)

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

MR. COCHRANE

asked if there was any limitation as to the size of the holding. There was another point, and that was as to how this would work in case a man went out to Canada to make money and when he came back desired to resume his holding. What size of holding was referred to, and would this proposal allow a large estate to be resumed possession of.

MR. URE said the Amendment applied necessarily to just the size of holdings to which the Act applied.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY said the history of this Amendment was interesting and instructive because it had been moved to protect the districts of Orkney and Shetland and Ross, and various other Highland districts. There was some discussion upon the question in Committee, and the interesting point was as to where the justice of it began and ended. By this Amendment the Government admitted that it was unjust to take a man's land when it was his only possession, but it might be in the public interest to take it. Why if it was just in one case should it be unjust in another! Why was it unjust to take a man's property if it happened to be 50 acres, and just to take 300 acres which the landlord wanted to farm himself? The Bill enabled such a farm to be cut up into small holdings for other people. He did not oppose the Amendment, but it would be interesting to have some justification of it from the Government. He thought the hon. Member representing Orkney and Shetland would have had a very unfortunate time if he had gone back to his constituents and told them that the Government had refused to listen to his representations. He hoped the House would remember the history of this Amendment and the reason why it had been introduced.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. J. F. MASON moved to leave out Clause 19 (Amendment of law as to bequest of holdings), which proposed to substitute the words "Land Court" for the word "sheriff" under Section 16 of the Act of 1886. Under Clause 21 the Land Court were empowered to delegate any of their powers to any one member, so that they could delegate the powers of the Sheriff to that one member, and there was no appeal except to the other members of the Court. When this question was raised in Committee they were told by the Solicitor General that the delegation would only apply to matters of fact. Later on it was pointed out that this very clause necessitated or enabled the Land Court to delegate its powers upon matters of law. It was evident that the Land Court could delegate any or all of its powers. It seemed to him that the legal member of the Land Court would become the sheriff to all intents and purposes and take his place. What appeal would there be from one member of the Land Court? There was no appeal except to the other members of the Court. There was only one legal member of the Land Court, and if there was any appeal desired from his decision, it must be made to the other members of the Court because he had no right to take part in an appeal in which his own action was in question. Therefore, a matter of law would be referred to members of the Court who were not legal experts, and who were not qualified to decide. There was absolutely no appeal from the judgment of the legal member. He begged to move.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON ,

in seconding the Amendment, said that in Committee he expressed his reluctance to part with the sheriff, because he regarded him as the last relic of justice left by this Bill. He was confirmed in that view by the statement of the hon. Member for Windsor. The hon. Member said that the Land Court could not be so easily "got at" as the sheriff. He would not pursue that argument because if he did he might be suspected of a double entendre. It was desirable that questions relating to the bequest of a tenant's right in a holding should be dealt with by a perfectly independent authority. The sheriff was a man in whom everybody had confidence.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 30, to leave out Clause 19."—(Mr. J. F. Mason.)

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

MR. URE said he did not share the views of the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs that in parting with the sheriff in this matter they were parting with the last relic of justice. They believed that the Land Court, consisting of, they hoped, five intelligent men of probity, would be found an impartial Court, and he thought it was certain that their duties would be confined strictly to judicial and executive functions. Nor did the Government share the apprehensions of the hon. Member for Windsor, that difficult questions of law would be remitted to the Land Court. Under Section 16 of the Crofters Act the only questions that would probably arise were questions of pure fact, with which the Land Court would be much better able to deal than the sheriff. A question of law had never arisen under this section except once in twenty years. There was, however, an appeal on questions of law to the Court of Session on a case stated.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY said he could have wished that this Amendment had received more sympathetic consideration. It was all very well for the Solicitor-General to say that the Land Court would only have to decide questions of fact, but the questions arising under Section 16 of the Crofters Act were not questions of fact at all. They were questions of opinion. What the sheriff had to decide now, the Land Court, or one member of it, would have to decide in future. It seemed to him that all sorts of questions might arise in which great discrimination would have to be shown by the person who gave the decision. The sheriff, being an old established institution in Scotland, must command far greater confidence than any Land Court which the Government could propose to set up. They were told that the Crofters Act had been an immense success. If that was so, why should the sheriff be relieved of duties which he had discharged properly in the past? He could not understand why this point in the Crofters Act had been picked out as one in regard to which there should be a change.

MR. COCHRANE said the cases in which in the past there had been appeals from the Crofters Commission were those in which it was said there had been flaws in procedure. The vast complications arising in such cases were much more likely to be properly dealt with by the sheriff who was an expert in law than by members of the Land Court who had no knowledge of law at all. So far as he knew, there was no fixed domicile for the Land Court. Having in view the rival claims of Glasgow and Edinburgh, the right hon. Gentleman had thought it unsafe to give any particular domicile to the Court, so that at present it was suspended, like Mahomet's coffin, betwixt earth and Heaven. Moreover they had not been told the names of the gentlemen who would compose the Land Court, although in all analogous Acts such names had either been embodied

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Duckworth, James	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Alden, Percy	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Elibank, Master of	Kearley, Hudson E.
Astbury, John Meir	Erskine, David C.	Kearley, George D.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Essex, R. W.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Esslemont, George Birnie	Laidlaw, Robert
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Everett, R. Lacey	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)	Fenwick, Charles	Lambert, George
Barnes, G. N.	Ferens, T. R.	Lamont, Norman
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Ffrench, Peter	Lehmann, R. C.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich
Beale, W. P.	Findlay, Alexander	Levy, Sir Maurice
Beauchamp, E.	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lewis, John Herbert
Beck, A. Cecil	Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Bell, Richard	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lough, Thomas
Bellairs, Carlyon	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lupton, Arnold
Benn, Sir J. Williams Devonp'rt	Gill, A. H.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Glover, Thomas	Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Maclean, Donald
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Gooch, George Peabody	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Grant, Corrie	Macpherson, J. T.
Bottomley, Horatio	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Brace, William	Gulland, John W.	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton	M'Callum, John M
Branch, James	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	M'Crae, George
Brigg, John	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	M'Killop, W.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Harwood, George	M'Micking, Major G.
Byles, William Pollard	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Maddison, Frederick
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Mallet, Charlee E.
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Markham, Arthur Basil
Cheetham, John Frederick	Hazleton, Richard	Marks, G. Croydon (Launeeston)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Helme, Norval Watson	Marnham, F. J.
Cleland, J. W.	Henderson, (Arthur Durham)	Massie, J.
Clough, William	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Micklem, Nathaniel
Clynes, J. R.	Henry, Charles S.	Molteno, Percy Alport
Corbett, CH (Sussex E. Grinst'd	Higham, John Sharp	Montgomery, H. G.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Mooney, J. J.
Cowan, W. H.	Hodge, John	Morrell, Philip
Cremer, Sir William Randal	Holden, E. Hopkinson	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Crooks, William	Holland, Sir William Henry	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)
Crosfield, A. H.	Horniman, Emslie John	Myer, Horatio
Dalziel, James Henry	Hudson, Walter	Napier, T. B.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Byde, Clarendon	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Idris, T. H. W.	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)	Jardine, Sir J.	Nolan, Joseph
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N	Jenkins, J.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

or else the House had been made acquainted with them. This Land Court, without a location and without personnel, was the most mysterious body that could be conceived, and yet the Solicitor-General for Scotland blindly confided to it all the duties hitherto so ably performed by the sheriff.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 237; Noes, 54. (Division List No. 392.)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Sears, J. E.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Seddon, J.	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Paulton, James Mellor	Shackleton, David James	Wardle, George J.
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Waring, Walter
Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Sherwell, Arthur James	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Waterlow, D. S.
Pirie, Duncan V.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Watt, Henry A.
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Simon, John Allsebrook	Weir, James Galloway
Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradf ord, E.)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	White, George (Norfolk)
Radford, G. H.	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	White, J. D (Dumbartonshire)
Raphael, Herbert H.	Snowden, P.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Stanger, H. Y.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Richardson, A.	Strachey, Sir Edward	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Rickett, J. Compton	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Ridsdale, E. A.	Sutherland, J. E.	Wills, Arthur Walters
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Thompson, TWH. (Somerset, E.)	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough)
Robinson, S.	Tomkinson, James	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Roe, Sir Thomas	Torrance, Sir A. M.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rogers, P. E. Newman	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Rose, Charles Day	Ure, Alexander
Rowlands, J.	Verney, F. W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Russell, T. W.	Vivian, Henry
Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

NOES.
Aeland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Nield, Herbert
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Fell, Arthur	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)
Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (CityLond.)	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Banbury, Sir Prederick George	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Fletcher, J. S.	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Forster, Henry William	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bowles, G. Stewart	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Gordon, J.	Starkey, John R.
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Cave, George	Helmsley, Viscount	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Hills, J. W.	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hunt, Rowland	Valentia, Viscount
Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Younger, George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Craik, Sir Henry	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Mason and Mr. Abel Smith.
Dalrymple, Viscount	Moore, William

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 14, line 33, at end, to insert the words 'and shall be read and construed accordingly with the necessary modifications.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

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

MR. COCHRANE ,

in moving to omit Clause 21 (Transfer of powers and duties) said he wished to ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he could give some more information in regard to the Land Court than the House had yet had. It would be very convenient if the hon. and learned Gentleman could give the names of the gentlemen whom it was proposed to appoint to the Land Court, When the Irish Land Act of 1881 was under discussion Mr. Gladstone acceded to the request of the late Lord Randolph Churchill that the names of the Land Commission should be inserted in that Act. He wished to know where the Land Court was to be located. Was it to be situated in Edinburgh or in Glasgow? But even a bigger question than that was the formation of the Land Court and its powers. As he understood it the senior member was to be a barrister of ten years standing, and there were to be five other members selected for other reasons. They were to have full power and jurisdiction to hear and decide all matters of law and fact without appeal. Their powers were of a very drastic character, and no other Court had power to interfere with the proceedings of the Land Court. It was true that they might state a special case for the opinion of another Court on a point of law which arose, but that was the only way of appeal. The Court might delegate their powers to any one of its members, and in that case the only appeal was to the Land Court itself, three members of which might form a quorum. He thought he had said sufficient to show that the constitution of the Land Court and its powers required some explanation. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 15, line 27, to omit Clause 21."—(Mr. Cochrane.)

Question proposed, "That the words of the clause down to the word 'may,' in page 15, line 36, stand part of the Bill."

MR. SINCLAIR said it would be premature at this stage to announce who would be nominated members of the Land Court. As to the location of the Court, he had no reason to suppose that it would be other than at Edinburgh. Explaining the Amendments appearing on the Paper, the right hon. Gentleman said there was no appeal from the decisions of the Land Court on question of fact, but there was a discretion given to the Court to state a case on points of law if they thought fit. In response to criticisms in Committee, he now proposed to modify this by providing that the Land Court "shall on the request of any party if they consider the request reasonable" state a case on points of law. Another of the Amendments which he had put down would enact that three members of the Land Court should form a quorum. A further Amendment referred to the subsection giving a power to review by three or more members of the Land Court any order or determination arrived at by one or two delegated members, in regard to which he proposed to provide that such Court of Review, if consisting of three members, should include, "not more than one member who was a party to such order or determination." By this means the Government provided that there should always be a majority of the Court of Appeal who had not heard the case in the first instance.

SIR HENRY CRAIK said his objection to have this proposal was that if one man gave a decision he was pledged to the decision which he had already given, and the proposal of the Secretary for Scotland practically amounted to this, that two members of the Court of Review would be balanced against another member.

MR. SINCLAIR said he had explained that the Court should consist of three members not more than one of whom was a party to the original determination.

SIR HENRY CRAIK said it was not a Court of Appeal. In that case the Court of Appeal would be equally divided. He desired that in that Court there should be a majority. To begin with, they should have a majority without any prejudice one way or the other. He, however, understood that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to meet that objection.

VISCOUNT HELMSLEY said this was the first time that the question of the Land Court had come up for discussion in the House. It was not discussed in Committee and was closured on Report. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think he had met their views in the matter by the first Amendment he had down upon the Paper. But the right hon. Gentleman was to consider the words of the Irish Act of 1887 and see whether they could not be adopted. He would also like to know what reason the right hon. Gentleman had for putting in this particular form of words instead of "unless the action was frivolous or vexatious," which in his opinion, were much better words. The Court of Appeal were quite likely to start with the assumption that an appeal from their decision was unreasonable, because if they had not thought their decision was reasonable they would not have given it.

MR. SINCLAIR

said he was advised that the words he had proposed had exactly the same significance and were proper for this purpose. He reminded the hon. Member that he gave no pledge to accept any particular form of words.

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Kekewich, Sir George
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Kelley, George D.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Alden, Percy	Elibank, Master of	Laidlaw, Robert
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Erskine, David C.	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Essex, R. W.	Lambert, George
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Esslemont, George Birnie	Lamont, Norman
Astbury, John Meir	Everett, R. Lacey	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Fenwick, Charles	Lehmann, R. C.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Ferens, T. R.	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Ffrench, Peter	Levy, Sir Maurice
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lewis, John Herbert
Barnes, G. N.	Findlay, Alexander	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lough, Thomas
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Freeman-Thomas. Freeman	Lupton, Arnold
Beale, W. P.	Fuller, John Michael F.	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Beauchamp, E.	Furness, Sir Christopher	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Beck, A. Cecil	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs
Bell, Richard	Gill, A. H.	Maclean, Donald
Bellairs, Carlyon	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt	Glover, Thomas	Macpherson, J. T.
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Gooch, George Peabody	M'Callum, John M.
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex., Romf'rd	Grant, Corrie	M'C'rae, George
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bottomley, Horatio	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	M'Killop, W.
Brace, William	Gulland, John W.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Bramsdon, T. A.	Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton	M'Micking, Major G.
Branch, James	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Maddison, Frederick
Brigg, John	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Mallet, Charles E.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Harms worth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh	Markham, Arthur Basil
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	Marnham, F. J.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Harwood, George	Massie, J.
Byles, William Pollard	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Micklem, Nathaniel
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Molteno, Percy Alport
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Montgomery, H. G.
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Hazleton, Richard	Mooney, J. J.
Cheetham, John Frederick	Helme, Norval Watson	Morrell, Philip
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cleland, J. W.	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Murphy, John (Kerry, East)
Clough, William	Henry, Charles S.	Murray, James
Clynes, J. R.	Higham, John Sharp	Myer, Horatio
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hobart, Sir Robert	Napier, T. B.
Cooper, G. J.	Hodge, John	Newnes, F. (Notts, Basset-law)
Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Holden, E. Hopkinson	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Holland, Sir William Henry	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r
Cowan, W. H.	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Nolan, Joseph
Cox, Harold	Horniman, Emslie John	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Hudson, Walter	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cremer, Sir William Randal	Hyde, Clarendon	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Crooks, William	Idris, T. H. W.	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Crosfield, A. H.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Paulton, James Mellor
Dalziel, James Henry	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Jardine, Sir J.	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Jenkins, J.	Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Pollard, Dr.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Duckworth, James	Kearley, Hudson E.	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E)

He pledged himself to meet the spirit of the words.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 258; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 393.)

Radford, G. H.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)
Rainy, A. Rolland	Simon, John Allsebrook	Waterlow, D. S.
Raphael, Herbert H.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Watt, Henry A.
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Weir, James Galloway
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Snowden, P.	White, George (Norfolk)
Richardson, A.	Stanger, H. Y.	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Rickett, J. Compton	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ridsdale, E. A.	Strachey, Sir Edward	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd	Sutherland, J. E.	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Robinson, S.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
Roe, Sir Thomas	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Rose, Charles Day	Tomkinson, James	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Rowlands, J.	Torrance, Sir A. M.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.)
Russell, T. W.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne	Ure, Alexander	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Sears, J. E.	Verney, F. W.	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Seddon, J.	Vivian, Henry
Seely, Colonel	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Shackleton, David James	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Walton, Joseph (Bamsley)
Sherwell, Arthur James	Wardle, George J.
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Waring, Walter

NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)	Fletcher, J. S.	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Forster, Henry William	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gordon, J.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bowles, G. Stewart	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hills, J. W.	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hunt, Rowland	Starkey, John R.
Cave, George	Keswick, William	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.	Kimber, Sir Henry	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Valentia, Viscount
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Craik, Sir Henry	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Younger, George
Dalrymple, Viscount	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Moore, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Abel Smith and Viscount Helmsley.
Faber, George Denison (York)	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Fell, Arthur	Nield, Herbert

And, it being half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 5th August, successively to put forthwith the Question upon any Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.

Amendments proposed— In page 15, line 36, after the word 'fit,' to insert the words 'and shall on the request of any party if they consider the request reasonable.' In page 16, line 3, after the word 'case,' to insert the words 'without prejudice to the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 1886.' In page 16, line 13, at beginning, to insert 'the words 'Three members of the Land Court shall be a quorum: Provided that.' In page 16, line 20, after the word 'Court,' to insert the words 'including where such court of review consists of three members not more than one member who was a party to such order or determination' In page 16, line 35, to leave out from the word 'holding,' to end of line 36, and to insert, '(3) A person shall not be hell an existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder under this Act in respect of.' In page 17, line 1, after the word 'land,' to insert the words '(exclusive of any common pasture or grazing land held or to be held therewith).' In page 17, line 5, at end of line, to insert the words 'the home farm of any estate or of.' In page 17, line 8, at end of line to insert the words 'being permanent grass park held for the purposes of a business or calling not primarily agricultural or pastoral, including that of butcher, cattle-dealer, and the like, or.' In page 17, line 23, at end, to add the words, '(4) A person shall not be admissible to registration as a new holder under this Act in respect of any land referred to in Paragraphs (b), (d), (e), (g), or (i), or, except by agreement, in respect of any land referred to in Paragraphs (a), (c), (f), or (h) of the immediately preceding subsection.' In page 17, line 24, to leave out the words 'the immediately preceding sub-section,' and to insert the words 'this Act.' In page 17, line 26, after the word 'holding,' to insert the words '(whether by agreement or otherwise in either case).' In page 17, line 31, to leave out from the word 'leaseholder,' to the first word 'of,' in line 32, and to insert the words 'within the meaning.'

Amendments agreed to.

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Cleland, J. W.	Glover, Thomas
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Clough, William	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Alden, Percy	Clynes, J. R.	Gooch, George Peabody
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Grant, Corrie
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Cooper, G. J.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Astbury, John Meir	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Gulland, John W.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Cowan, W. H.	Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Cremer, Sir William Randal	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)	Crooks, William	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh
Barnes, G. N.	Crosfield, A. H.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Dalziel, James Henry	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Harwood, George
Beale, W. P.	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Beauchamp, E.	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Haworth, Arthur A.
Beck, A. Cecil	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Bell, Richard	Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)	Hazleton, Richard
Bellairs, Carlyon	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.	Helme, Norval Watson
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Berridge, T. H. D.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Henry, Charles S.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Higham, John Sharp
Bottomley, Horatio	Elibank, Master of	Hobart, Sir Robert
Bowerman, C. W.	Erskine, David C.	Hodge, John
Brace, William	Essex, R. W.	Holden, E. Hopkinson
Bramsdon, T. A.	Esslemont, George Birnie	Holland, Sir William Henry
Branch, James	Everett, R. Lacey	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Brigg, John	Fenwick, Charles	Horniman, Emslie John
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Ferens, T. R.	Hudson, Walter
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Ffrench, Peter	Hyde, Clarendon
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Idris, T. H. W.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Findlay, Alexander	Illingworth, Percy H.
Byles, William Pollard	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Jacoby, Sir James Alfred
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Fuller, John Michael F.	Jardine, Sir J.
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Furness, Sir Christopher	Jenkins, J.
Cawley, Sir Frederick	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Cheetham, John Frederick	Gill, A. H.	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Amendment proposed— In page 18, line 5, at end, to insert the words, 'The provisions of Section 2 of this Act shall extend to and include joint-tenants being existing crofters, existing yearly tenants, or qualified leaseholders; but not more than one person shall be registered as a new holder in respect of any holding and (without prejudice to the continuance of a joint tenancy through statutory successors) where at any time after the commencement of this Act a holding is held by a single landholder or a holding which has been held in joint tenancy ceases to be so held it shall not be competent for more than one person to be a landholder in respect of such holding. Except so far as may be inconsistent with any express provision of this Act the tenancy of a landholder under the Landholders Acts shall, in the case of every existing crofter, be deemed to be in all respects a continuance of his tenancy as a crofter under the Crofters Acts, and all contracts and other deeds and documents shall be read and construed accordingly.'"—(Mr. Sinclair.)

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 63. (Division List No. 391.)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Napier, T. B.	Snowden, P.
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)	Stanger, H. Y.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock) s
Kearley, Hudson E.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r	Strachey, Sir Edward
Kekewich, Sir George	Nolan, Joseph	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Kelley, George D.	Norton, Capt. Cecil Williams	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Sutherland, J. E.
Laidlaw, Robert	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Lambert, George	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Lamont, Norman	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset. E
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)	Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)	Tomkinson, James
Lehmann, R. C.	Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Levy, Sir Maurice	Pirie, Duncan V.	Ure, Alexander
Lewis, John Herbert	Pollard, Dr.	Verney, F. W.
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Vivian, Henry
Lough, Thomas	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)	Walker, H. De B. (Leicester)
Lupton, Arnold	Radford, G. H.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S,)
Luttrell, Hugh Fowness	Rainy, A. Rolland	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Raphael, Herbert H.	Wardle, George J.
Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Waring, Walter
Maclean, Donald	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Richardson, A.	Waterlow, D. S.
Macpherson, J. T.	Rickett, J. Compton	Watt, Henry A.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Ridsdale, E. A.	Weir, James Galloway
MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	White, George (Norfolk)
M'Callum, John M.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
M'Crae, George	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
M'Killop, W.	Robinson, S.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Roe, Sir Thomas	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
M'Micking, Major G.	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Williams, Llewelvn (Carmarth'n
Maddison, Frederick	Rose, Charles Day	Wills, Arthur Walters
Mallet, Charles E.	Rowlands, J.	Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
Markham, Arthur Basil	Russell, T. W.	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Marnham, F. J.	Sears, J. E.	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Massie, J.	Seddon, J.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Micklem, Nathaniel	Seely, Colonel	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Molteno, Percy Alport	Shackleton, David James	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Montgomery, H. G.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Mooney, J. J.	Sherwell, Arthur James
Morrell, Philip	Shipman, Dr. John G.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Murphy, John (Kerry, East)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Murray, James	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Myer, Horatio	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

NOES.
Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (CityLond.	Fletcher, J. S.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Forster, Henry William	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gordon, J.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bowles, G. Stewart	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Helmsley, Viscount.	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hills, J. W.	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Cave, George	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Starkey, John R.
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.	Hunt, Rowland	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Keswick, William	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Kimber, Sir Henry	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Craik, Sir Henry	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Younger, George
Dalrymple, Viscount	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Faber, George Denison (York)	Meysey-Thompson. E. C.
Fell, Arthur	Moore, William
Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Nield, Herbert

Amendments proposed— In page 19, line 36, to leave out the words 'immediately before,' and insert the word 'at.' In the Schedule, page 21, column 3, line 24, to leave out the word 'legatees,' and insert the word 'Act.' In the Schedule, page 21, column 3, line 26, at end, to insert the words 'section twenty-four from "and it," to end of section.'"—[Mr. Sinclair.]

Amendments agreed to.

Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 307.]