§ As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
§ *MR. WEDGWOOD (Newcastle-under-Lyme) moved an Amendment providing that where a council proposed to purchase land compulsorily under the Act it might submit to the Board an Order "for the compulsory purchase of the land specified in the Order." The effect of the alteration, he said, would be to put the purchase of land by the local authorities for the purposes of small holdings on all fours with the hiring of land for small holdings. As far as the hiring clauses of the Bill were concerned, the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845 was no longer operative, and the first schedule alone governed the price which the arbitrator had to give. All he desired by the Amendment was to confer the same power on local authorities in respect of the purchase of land. The Solicitor-General in his speech had pointed out that these purchase clauses, governed by the Land, Clauses Consolidation Act, had been oppressive to railway companies and municipalities. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman had used a stronger word than "oppressive"; he had said that the clauses were strangling railway and municipal enterprise. At all events, it was notorious that under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, railway companies and municipalities, going to arbitration, had to pay a price for land which was far in excess of its value. He would like to give hon. Members a single instance of this. A learned King's Counsel in that House had told him that one of the first cases he 1321 conducted was that of the North Eastern Railway, who desired to alter two level crossings at Bridlington, and in order to effect this change the company required the use of the land about the crossings to make a temporary way for the public. The actual value of these pieces of land was about £10 apiece, but a claim was put in for £5, 000. The matter went to arbitration and, despite the expert witnesses called by the company, judgment for £2, 500 for each piece was given. This sum the company had to pay before they could acquire the land. That was an example of the working of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and yet it was under that Act that they proposed to restore the land to the people. He would appeal to all hon. Members who were anxious that the Bill should be a success, and that the small holdings established under it should be successful, to vote for the Amendment. It was not possible to conceive any small holder being successful who started burdened with the excessive price he would be called upon to pay for his holding under the present purchase clauses of the Act, or with the heavy rent based upon such excessive price. A small holder who had to pay for interest and sinking fund upon three or four times the market value of the land could not possibly hope to succeed. Hon. Members might say that so far as the present Bill was concerned the Lands Clauses Act of 1815 was modified by the directions contained in Schedule 1, and this then prevented any chance of those excessive prices. That was evidently not the opinion of the Solicitor-General, who did not put much faith in the schedule in his speech yesterday. And the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was obviously of the opinion that the schedule was not of much importance; for he accepted an Amendment in the schedule making the words governing purchase the same as those governing the hire of land, and in doing so, he said the Amendment was of no importance whatever and was perfectly innocent, but as it would do no damage, the Government might accept it. The Government and the Opposition knew that such a direction in the schedule was absolutely inoperative, because until the Lands Clauses Act of 1845 was abolished all the directions and qualifications in the schedule might be treated as so much 1322 waste paper. It might be said that he was only discussing compulsory purchase and that this only led to arbitration and excessive prices, whereas, under the Bill, in most cases purchase would be by agreement. If that were the argument he would point out to the House that railways and municipalities, and all those who paid high prices for land, had also every opportunity of purchasing by agreement. They did not go to arbitration and pay ten, twenty, perhaps thirty, times more for the land than it was worth simply for the love of the thing. They had to pay that high price because the agreement price was governed by the price which could be obtained under arbitration. Therefore, whether local authorities were purchasing small holdings, or railway companies were buying land for level crossings, or municipalities were acquiring land for schools, in all these cases they would be forced to pay arbitration prices for the simple reason that the agreement price would be based on that arbitration price. All hon. Members who desired to see the purchase clauses in the Bill work satisfactorily ought to vote for his Amendment. It was only by voting for such an Amendment that it would be possible for the purchase clauses of the Bill to be of use. Let hon. Members remember that they had in course of passing into law a Valuation Bill for Scotland, and they also hoped to pass a similar measure for England, which would have the effect of fixing the capital market value of the land. By such a measure they would have a sure and certain guide for the purchase of land for purposes of public utility. A short clause such as he proposed in his next Amendment, fixing the price paid for small holdings and allotments at the price fixed for the valuation of that land would give them a basis to work on and would free them from the shackles of the Act of 1845, substituting in its place a fair, uniform, and general basis. But the Solicitor-General argued that this was pre-eminently a hiring Bill, not a purchase Bill. And yet what were these hiring clauses worth? As they stood, county councils could not hire land for more than thirty-five years, and at the end of that period the landlord could resume possession, and all the capital which the local authority had invested on the land, the improvement also which would be the result if the 1323 small holding were a success, would revert to the landlord. The sinking fund and interest upon that capital, which on account of the short period of the lease were sure to be heavy, would have to be paid by the tenant. Therefore it amounted to this: If the county council hired land they must avoid putting into it invested capital, for the reason that neither they nor the tenant would get the value of it, but, instead, it would be enjoyed by the landlord. He knew that there was a special clause which gave the local authority the power to renew the lease at practically the same rent at which it was first obtained, and that a valuer was not to give the landlord any increased rent on account of improvements carried out by the county council or the small holder; also that he was not to increase the rent on account of the success of the holding or of the holdings in the neighbourhood. But this clause was only operative where the hiring was compulsory and did not apply in cases where the holding had been hired by agreement. Everyone knew that the compulsory hiring powers contained in the Bill had only been put in to act as a screw, and that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the hiring would be done by agreement. In all cases where there was an agreement the State would have absolutely no prima facie right to renew the tenancy. It was an important point which he hoped the Government would realise and alter before the Bill became law. He trusted that they would make a condition that the State should have the right to renew a tenancy which had been acquired by agreement in precisely the same way as if that tenancy had been acquired compulsorily. In the matter of hiring tenancies he would especially advise county councils and local authorities not to hire by agreement but compulsorily, and above all never to hire where there was likely to be any building. Local authorities should be very careful before they burnt their fingers with any land which was likely to be wanted for building purposes and where, hired by agreement, the landlord could resume possession. When resuming possession the landlord would pay compensation to the local authority, who in its turn, would pay compensation to the small holder, but in every case where such resumption by the landlord took place it would 1324 be the poor local authority who would lose on the deal. It was bound to be so, because the landlord would compensate the local authority under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and the compensation under that Act was very small indeed, whilst on the other hand, the local authority would have to compensate the tenant under the Market Gardeners' Act, which, of course, was extremely high compensation. Thus the House would see that the small holder would come out of it very well, because he would get ample compensation; so would the landlord, because he would only pay a nominal compensation and would resume possession of his land; but the local authority, getting no advantage, would yet have to pay the most fie thought it was not yet too late for the Government to consider these difficulties and alter the Bill so as to avoid them. He had pointed out the defects in the hiring clauses of the measure and he appealed to the House, in view of them, to consider whether it would not be worth while to make the purchase clauses stronger and more operative than they were at present. If the Government accepted his Amendment there would not be the slightest difficulty in doing this. They would simply strike out of the Bill the Act of 1845, which hampered our railway companies and municipalities at the present time and would hamper that development of small holdings. Unless that were done the measure could never be a business proposition. He begged to move.
§ * MR. ELLIS DAVIES (Carnarvonshire, Eifion),
in seconding the Amendment, said that if small holdings were to be successful it was absolutely necessary that they should be secured at a price which would enable the county council to let them to the tenants at an economic rent. That meant that the land must be obtained by the county council at a price dependent only on its value as agricultural land. In legislating on this question, it must be remembered that there was no magic about small holdings. The tenant had to depend for profit solely on the character of the land, the labour and capital he put into it. This Bill threw on the tenant the duty of repaying all the money that had to be paid by the county 1325 council to the owner, because it was expressly provided that no part of the loss or expense was to be borne by that body, and it must therefore be ultimately paid by the occupier. For that reason it was essential that the machinery by which the land was to be acquired should be the simplest and most inexpensive possible. He did not think any lawyer would challenge the statement that the Lands Clauses Act of 1845 provided a most expensive method of ascertaining the value of land or of obtaining land, and it was most essential that the county council should acquire land in a simple, inexpensive and effective manner.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 11, line 36, to leave out from the word 'order' to the end of Clause 26, and insert the words 'for the compulsory purchase of the land specified in the order'"—(Mr. Wedgwood)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 38, in page 11, stand part of the Bill."
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,) Lancashire, Rossendale
said he did not think it was necessary to follow in detail the hon. Member's speech, which really was appropriate to a Motion for the rejection of the Third Reading of the Bill. He would explain in a few words why it was necessary to retain certain powers of the Lands Clauses Acts which they had kept in the Schedule, and he thought he would be able to point out how greatly they had varied the procedure which otherwise would have had to be followed if the Lands Clauses Act had been left untouched and applied as a whole. It was necessary to have certain clauses of the Lands Clauses Acts in this Bill in order that they might deal with some of the limited owners, who would naturally crop up in these transactions, and in that they were following the precedent of Section 9, Subsection 4, of the Act of 1894. They were requisite also for procedure, for notice to treat and to quit, and for specifying the persons who were entitled to compensation, and the method by which that compensation might subsequently be obtained. If they had not applied those clauses in the schedule they would have to had add another dozen 1326 or twenty clauses to the Bill setting out certain parts of the Lands Clauses Acts. Those Acts were not applied to the hiring clauses, because they were not applicable to hiring. The Lands Clauses Acts nowhere took any cognisance of hiring by compulsion or agreement; it applied only to the purchase of land by compulsion. If the hon. Member would look at the schedule—and he was afraid that the hon. Gentleman had not studied it with that care which he would have expected of him—he would find that they had incorporated the Lands Clauses Acts subject to the necessary adaptation for the objects they had in view. The Lands Clauses Acts as a whole were as great a bugbear to him, if possible, as they were to the hon. Member himself. They had been so from the first, and he took particular credit not only to himself, but also to those who had acted with him, for the way in which they had evaded the difficulties and the expenses they would have been put to if they had adopted the Lands Clauses Acts as a whole. Did the hon. Member realise what were the limitations they had made on the operation of those Acts? First of all, they had a definite clause omitting all compensation for compulsory acquisition of land. Then they had set up a much simpler form of arbitration by a single arbitrator appointed by the Board. They had got a subsection in the schedule specifically excluding counsel and expert witnesses save in exceptional cases, and a provision that there should be a scale of costs prescribed by the Lord Chancellor. He did not think they could go further in prescribing the cheapest possible method of acquiring land at a fair price. The hon. Member had stated that the landlord could resume, possession at the end of thirty-five years, but, by a subsequent admission, he said that he was incorrect. It was Certainly a matter on which hon. Gentlemen opposite became rather heated, that the landlord had no right to resume possession at the conclusion of the lease, so long as the county council wished to renew.
§ MR. HARCOURT said if the hon. Member had not interrupted him he was 1327 going on to explain, of course, that this was the case only where the land was taken compulsorily. By varying and limiting the clauses of the Lands Clauses Act, an enormous amount of repetition of clauses which otherwise would have had to go into the Bill, had been avoided; and he was convineced that they had got the cheapest possible method for the acquisition of land—a cheaper method than had ever yet gone into an Act of Parliament, and he must retain these words for the purposes for which they were included.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. WEDGWOOD
next moved an Amendment to the effect that when the capital unimproved value of any land acquired under this Act compulsorily should have been ascertained under any Act of Parliament hereafter to be passed for the general valuation of land for the purposes of rating or taxation, the compensation to be paid for such land should be such ascertained capital value, with any addition for buildings and improvements upon the land, or for severance, that the case might require. He would not, he said, have moved this Amendment had it not been that there was a precedent for putting in an Act of Parliament reference to legislation which might be subsequently passed. Seeing that there was such a precedent, he thought they had here a valuable opportunity of including this provision in the Small Holdings Bill, so soon as the Valuation Bill for England had become law. They hoped next year to get this Bill which would apply to England and Wales, and as soon as that was obtained, they would have a cheaper way of purchasing land for such public purposes as small holdings than the present Bill afforded. He did not think it would be asking too much to require that this valuation of land, ascertained in the best possible way and by public assessors, should be used as the basis on which land might be purchased in the country. He thought the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said that if the Valuation Bill had been passed he would have been glad to embody the clause in this Bill, or, at any rate, that in default of 1328 the Valuation Bill being passed, this Bill offered the best method of ascertaining the value of the land. He thought the simpler way would be the embodiment of this clause which the right hon. Gentleman himself approved. In asking the right hon. Gentleman to insert this proviso in the Bill he did not think he was asking him to do anything very great. He did not say that the price should be absolutely the valuation price. All due allowance might he made for severance, for improvements, or for anything, in fact, that the right hon. Gentleman chose to insert in the schedule. All he asked was that the Valuation Bill which would be, he hoped, carried next year, should be used as the basis for the compulsory purchase of land for the welfare of the whole community. It might be said by some hon. Gentlemen that when the Valuation Bill was passed it would then be quite possible to embody in this Act a clause such as this, but that would require a special Bill to be passed in order to allow the new valuation lists to be used as the basis of purchase. What they wanted was, by this small clause, to save all the time and trouble of passing a special Act when the Valuation Bill did become law. Therefore, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider this request, with which, he was sure, he was in hearty sympathy. He begged to move.
§ MR. MASTERMAN (West Ham, N.) seconded the Amendment.
In page 11, line 38, at the end, to insert the words, 'Provided that when the capital unimproved value of any land to he acquired under this Act compulsorily shall have been ascertained under any Act of Parliament hereafter to be passed for the general valuation of I and for the purposes of rating or taxation, the compensation to be paid for such land shall be such ascertained capital value, with any addition for buildings and improvements upon the land, or for severance, that the case may require.'"—[Mr. Wedgwood.)
§ Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ * MR. HARCOURT
thought the hon. Member knew that he was in general agreement with the principle he sought to establish, but he differed 1329 from him widely, as he had done upstairs, as to the method by which he sought to apply that principle. He was certainly prepared to admit that a change was required in the existing valuation for England, but he could not admit that it was reasonable or convenient, even if there were a precedent, though not a very close one, to apply by an Amendment on Report an Act of Parliament hereafter to be passed. It was quite true there was a precedent, the only one which existed, in the Allotment Act of 1887, by which a clause was inserted that the powers under that Act should be exercised by the Local Government Board until the county authorities had been created by the Bill of the next year and had come into actual operation. But that was rather a different thing from inserting a perfectly vague provision as to the whole question of ownership and transfer of land. He did not think the hon. Gentleman had quite considered what this might mean. No doubt in his own mind the hon. Member had a perfectly clear idea of the lines which the Valuation Bill ought to take, and if it varied by a hair's breadth from those lines they would be denounced by him with his usual eloquence. It was always difficult, even for those who were almost infallible, to forecast exactly in what shape a Bill would receive the Royal Assent. They did not know until the Hill became law whether the valuation would be annual, quinquennial, or decennial. He was quite sure the hon. Member would wish it to be an annual one, and he would rather wish that himself. Supposing it turned out to be a quinquennial valuation, under the provisions of this Bill the land would have to be purchased on a valuation which had been made four and a half years previously, and at a price altogether out of date. These were matters which must be considered before they applied things in this way. In reference to the argument that a special Act would have to be passed to apply the Valuation Bill of next year, he might state that there was a precedent which might relieve the hon. Member from so oppressive a bugbear. The Metropolitan Valuation Act of 1859 applied the valuation that was 1330 brought into force in respect of income-tax assessments; in fact, it changed the whole of the income-tax assessments, not by a new Act, but by the mere application of the Act when it was passed. He hoped that the application of the new valuation principles when they were carried into law would apply not only to land acquired by the local authorities for small holdings but to all purposes for which land was acquired by local authorities. But he did not see how such a provision could be inserted in this Bill and at this stage of it.
§ MR. WEDGWOOD,
after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London) said he did not wish to continue the discussion, but though hon. Members on his side did not join in it, he desired to say that it must not be assumed that they approved the general principle laid down either by the hon. Gentleman or the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ *MR. ELLIS DAVIES moved an Amendment to omit the words "nor more than thirty-five years." The words of the Bill, he said, were "not less than fourteen years, nor more than thirty-five years," and the object of his Amendment was to retain the minimum period and do away with the maximum of thirty-five years for compulsorily leasing by county councils. The expenses of adapting the land, erecting buildings, draining, fencing, and supplying water had to be borne in the first instance by the county council, and as this Bill depended for its success on the county councils, he thought it was essential that the conditions under which those bodies worked should be reasonable. The Bill proposed a maximum period of thirty-five years, and the result, he supposed, would be, where the land had been compulsorily acquired for thirty-five years, and it became necessary for the county council to put up buildings, drain and fence and do whatever was necessary, that the local authority would be faced at once with the problem whether it was reasonable to spend 1331 money on land that they could only hold for thirty-five years. He put it to Members whether they could really recommend a county council to spend money under a lease for thirty-five years. He pressed upon the Government that unless the county councils could acquire the land for a longer period they would, he feared, be only too well justified in refusing to carry out the Bill by spending public money on the erection of buildings and fencing and draining and supplying water. It seemed to him that the shortness of the lease was fatal from another point of view. The whole expense of not merely buying the land, but of adapting it and putting up buildings and executing other works, though at first borne by the county council, must ultimately fall upon the tenant in the way of rent. It was now admitted that the rent to be paid by the tenant to the county council must not only be a fair rent as for agricultural land, but a rent by way of sinking fund to enable the county council in the short period of thirty-five years to recoup itself for any expenditure in adapting the land and putting buildings upon it. Any Member who had any acquaintance with small holdings knew the hard and uncertain life of the tenant farmer. Had he ever been asked by any landowner in this country, in addition to his rent, to repay the landowner the capital value of the buildings which had been erected on his land and especially to do so in thirty-five years? His submission was that unless the county council had power to acquire land for a much longer period than thirty-five years, and if they had to expend public money on buildings and other works, they would not be able to demand from the tenant farmer an economic rent, and the rent he would have to pay would be so heavy as to make success impossible. But he proposed the Amendment which stood in his name for another reason. He had no land of his own, and he confessed frankly that the power of compulsory leasing did not attract him. It was perfectly well known that it was practically impossible to sell land subject to leases at a rack rent, and it was even more difficult to mortgage it. It seemed to him rather hard, to say the least, that they should compulsorily take from a man his 1332 land, and make it for a period of thirty-five years unsaleable and, to coin a word, unmortgageable. It was perfectly well known that in some districts of England, particularly in Manchester and Liverpool, there was a very common method of acquiring land on long leases or subject to rent charges. No money was paid, but an annual rent-charge was created on long leases granted with the result that the land, to all intents and purposes, subject to the payment of this rent, because the property of the purchaser. On the other hand, the person who sold the land obtained a perpetual rent-charge, and immediately became possessed of an interest which had a known market value and for which he could find a ready market or if necessity arose raise money on it. If some such Amendment could be made in the Bill the position of the county councils would be very much better. They would be enabled to acquire land which for all practicable purposes would be their own subject only to the rent-charge. The result would be that the county councils could erect buildings put up houses, fence and drain, make roads, provide water, and do all the other necessary work in connection with a small holding in full assurance, that every penny they spent would ultimately be returned to them in the way of rent. Moreover, they would be able to let the land to the tenant at a rent which would render it possible for the tenant to make the holding a success. If the county council could obtain land under a perpetual lease, or for ninety-nine or 100 years, they would be in a position to let the land to the tenant at a fair rent, plus a small addition necessary for a sinking fund. He begged to move.
In page 12, line 1, to leave out the words 'nor more than thirty-five.'
§ Question proposed, "That the word; proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. HARCOURT
said the provision to which the hon. Member objected was 1333 the outcome of the old game of battledore and shuttlecock between the House of Commons and another place over the Bill of 1894. The original system under that Bill for the compulsory hiring of land was a system of not less than fourteen years, no maximum being fixed. In another place a maximum of not more than twenty-one years was inserted. The House of Commons refused to accept that limitation, and ultimately the limit of thirty-five years was inserted. The proposal before the House would make the initial lease a perpetual lease, and he did not know whether his hon. friend had considered the effect that might have on the price assessed by the valuers. He was under the impression that if the county council took a perpetual lease and paid a perpetual rent they would have to pay a perpetually higher rent, and that would be greatly to the disadvantage of the tenant.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was not at all sure that on this subject he agreed with those with whom he usually acted, and, therefore, in what he was about to say he spoke only for himself. He would, of course, have preferred the whole thing to be done by purchase, but he was not going back on that, as the question had been decided by the House. They had now got only to consider the two alternative policies of a lease which could not exceed thirty-five years and of a perpetual lease, or what was called in Scotland a feu. Personally he would prefer a feu both from the point of view of the cultivating tenant and from that of the landlord. Speaking from the point of view of the municipality, if the municipality was to tire land under the Bill for these short terms it would have to go through all the difficulty of fresh negotiations, and possibly fresh litigation, with the landowner at the end of fourteen or thirty-five years. That was not a very simple position. He would have thought, if it were not possible—and he assumed for the sake of his argument that it was not possible—to pay down a capital value, it would at all events be more convenient to enter into a permanent contract, and that the municipality should have all the rights and duties connected with the 1334 land which were given to the feuar in Scotland, and in England, as in Lancashire and other places, to the lessee for 999 years. They would then obtain, of course, what was called the unearned increment of the land, if any accrued, and they would have the full rights of ownership subject only to a perpetual charge equal to the original rent value of the land. Now he turned to the tenant's position with the landlord. He understood that the Government held that the plan of the Bill would be far better for the landlord than the plan the hon. Gentleman had proposed. The right hon. Gentleman opposite held the view that it was a hardship to deprive the landlord of any increment in the value of his land that might accrue by lapse of time and the progress of society, and that the landlord at the end of a lease for fourteen or thirty-five years should receive the amount of that increment when a new arrangement was come to. That was an argument which, as far as it went, was well worth considering; but, speaking for himself, if he was not to be allowed to be the practical owner and manager of his estate, he would rather part with the rights of ownership altogether, and if he could not get a capital sum, he would prefer to part with them for a rent-charge with all the security of the county rate. Under the Bill the landlord would lease the land, compulsorily or by agreement, for a term not exceeding thirty-five years. The Government were not going to hand back the land at the end of that time. Their plan was to give the county council practically a perpetual lease with a break at the end of thirty-five years at their will. He could say that in his judgment that was not a satisfactory arrangement from the landlord's point of view. If the Government could not get the capital to purchase the land outright, at all events let them do that which was practically equivalent to it—let them give a perpetual rent-charge, saleable, of course, on good security, and which would entirely exclude for all time the landlord from the management of or any responsibility in connection with the land. He ought not to be left in the ambiguous position in which the Bill left him. He did not know whether at the end of fourteen or thirty-five years 1335 he was going to have all his responsibility thrown back on his possibly unwilling shoulders, and would have to go to the cost of revaluing his rights in the land and to enter into fresh negotiation—perhaps fresh controversy—with the local authority. There was an ambiguity thrown over all his relations with the land. He was left the nominal owner under an arrangement to which he, at all events, would think no landlord would care to submit. For his own part, though he could not speak for the landowners, he would much rather lose any subsequent rights he had in the land, such as the so-called unearned increment, than be put in the unsatisfactory, ambiguous, and semi-responsible position in which the landlord was left under the Bill. These were the views he personally entertained speaking from the point of view of the small holder, of the municipality, and of the existing landlord. He spoke in this, however, only for himself, and possibly many of those interested either from the side of the municipality or of the owners of land might take a different view on this complicated question from that which commended itself to him.
§ MR. CHAPLIN (Surrey, Wimbledon)
said that although his right hon. friend had spoken for himself he was disposed to agree with much that had fallen from him. This clause dealt specifically with the acquisition of land by compulsion from the landlord. Looking at the matter as it concerned the landlord, what were the advantages of the proposed Amendment? His right hon. friend had said that if he were to be deprived of his property in the way proposed by the Bill, he would infinitely prefer to be deprived of it altogether once and for all. There was a good deal to be said from that point of view. So far as he was concerned he would prefer a perpetual lease to being messed about by a continual renewal of the lease at the end of a period of fourteen years or thirty-five years. He could not conceive a more disagreeable position than for a landlord never to know whether he was going to have his land thrown back on his hands or not. There was another point of view. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, assuming 1336 the Amendment were adopted, he at least was of opinion that the annual rent that would be fixed for a perpetual lease would be considerably greater than the rent fixed under the Bill as it stood. That might be a very good thing for the future owner presumably, but it would be a bad thing for the owner whose land was going to be taken. He could easily fancy that there might occasionally be cases where the land in England—he was not nearly so well acquainted with the system in Scotland as his right hon. friend—was taken from the landlord for the purposes of this Bill in which the landlord might look forward to the possibility of recovering that portion of his estate. He might not wish that a part of his old family estate to which he was devoted should be finally and perpetually severed from his possession even if he were paid cash for it—when he could get it. He had never abandoned the hope that they might be successful in getting an Amendment to this Bill by which, at the end of the first Lease, if the landlord desired it, he might be able to require the county council to purchase the land. If the county council wished to renew the lease that would be proof positive that the scheme of acquiring the land had been a success. It would be most unfair to refuse that right to the landlord. That was the general view which he entertained on the question. He might be foolishly sanguine in the hope that by some means such an Amendment might be inserted in the Bill before it became law. He was influenced by this consideration that if once perpetual leases were accepted there would be an end for all time of any hope of the landlord recovering his land.
§ * MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)
said that the Leader of the Opposition had expressed his preference for a perpetual lease to the limited lease provided for in this clause. But he wanted to put the point to the right hon. Gentleman that while that might be satisfactory from the landowner's point of view, how could it ever pay the community to enter into a perpetual lease if they had to pay an annual rent at all approximating the present rent? Land could be bought anywhere at thirty 1337 five years purchase, and he supposed that that was the reason a lease of thirty-five years was provided for in the Bill.
§ * MR. LEIF JONES
said that if the county council undertook to pay the annual rent for much more than thirty-five years, they would be paying rent for nothing. If, therefore, there was to be a perpetual lease, the rent charge would have to be much lower than for a short lease, otherwise it would necessarily be a losing bargain from the public point of view.
§ * MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)
said he could understand that an advantage would be gained by the landowner and the local authority, but he could not exactly see where the small holder—the tenant—came in. As he understood it, the proposal was to adopt what was called in Scotland the feu system where the holder of the feu had the right to sell or devise it. In fact the feuar was practically the owner subject to a perpetual rent charge. That was the proposition which the hon. Gentleman made, but what about the labourer? Was he to have a feu as well—to have a perpetual holding which he could sell, devise or mortgage subject to a rent charge? If not, the labourer, under these conditions, would be very badly off, because if the county council acquired that land under a perpetual lease the rent charge would become proportionally higher. The county council would put an extra rent on the small holder. Therefore the system would be good for the landlord and for the county council, but bad for the small holder who would be a yearly tenant unless he also got his holding in perpetuity and had the same right to selling, devising, and mortgaging as the first holder. He believed that it was the intention of the Act that the county council should let to small holders on a yearly tenancy. That was admitted, he understood, by the right hon. Gentleman during the Second Reading of the Bill. In fact that was the only view which the county council could adopt, because if a tenant was unsatisfactory and had a long lease 1338 the county council would not be able, under the Bill, to turn him out of his holding except under exceptional circumstances. He asked whether it was the intention of the Government to give the small holders any security in the form of a lease or simply to hold them as yearly tenants? If the answer was that that was left to the local authority, then he was quite sure that if the local authority was composed of business men, only yearly tenancies would be granted.
§ MR. MASTERMAN
said that the right hon. Member for Bordesley had asked where the small holder came in. It seemed to him that the whole conception of this Amendment was for the benefit of the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to approve of providing security of tenure to the small holder. It was true that no security of tenure would be given by the Bill to the small holder, but the Bill was a considerable advance towards giving him a right to remain in his holding so long as he continued to work the land properly. The possibility of the renewal of the lease at the end of thirty-five years was not in the mind of the small holder when he was considering at the outset whether he would put his capital into the land. He knew that there were thousands of small holders in England who were yearly tenants but who were practically tenants for thirty-five years.
§ * MR. JESSE COLLINGS
said that that security of tenure was due to the good understanding between landlord and tenant.
§ MR. MASTERMAN
said that he hoped that a better understanding would exist between the local authority and the small holder than there had been between the landlord and the small holder. What was wanted was that the small holder should be given his land under conditions by which he could live comfortably. He was glad to welcome the Leader of the Opposition as a recruit in this particular matter and regretted he was not present as a member of the Committee to assist by his cogent arguments the members below the gangway when they were defeated by thirty-two votes to thirteen. 1339 He did not see why this should be a bad bargain for the landlord. They wanted the removal of the limitation, and if it were not removed it should be at least extended to fifty years so as to cover the life of the buildings which would have to be put up. There were other circumstances which would seem to show that ninety-nine years would be a satisfactory period. Seeing that the Leader of the Opposition, hon. Members who sat below the gangway, and the Liberal Government in 1894 all demanded the same thing he pressed the Government to accept the Amendment.
§ SIR F. CAWLEY (Lancashire, Prestwich)
thought the Amendment ought to be accepted. In his opinion the county council could rent the land for less rent in perpetuity than they could for a certain number of years. Speaking as a small landowner, and he thought any small owner of land would agree with him, he would rather sell his land at a perpetual chief rent than on a lease to be broken at the option of the county council every few years. He would be able to realise that rent at any moment he liked because it would be an absolute security and one of the best that any trustee could invest in. Therefore it was fair to the landowner and would enable the county council to rent the land at a much lower rent than otherwise they would be able to do.
§ * MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)
said that, exercising the freedom which the Leader of their Party allowed to them, he must say that he could not support the Amendment, because he thought it would operate against purchase, which he considered was the most desirable end. If county councils wished to acquire land for small holdings, they had two courses open to them under the Bill as it now stood. If they doubted whether the small holdings would be a success, they could hire the land for fourteen years or for any period up to thirty-five years. But if they had sufficient confidence in their scheme and desired to hold the land for a longer period then they could buy the land, paying the purchase money at once, and borrowing the amount on the terms of its being repaid under any period up to eighty years. But if the Amendment 1340 were carried, the council would have a third alternative, namely, to hire the land for a long term of years, and this alternative might be adopted in preference to a purchase. He thought that the council should be encouraged rather to purchase the land than to lease it, and under these circumstances he would not be able to support the Amendment.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
said the Amendment was not an important one, but as far as it went he thought it would be well to accept it, because it gave a wider latitude. There was no doubt about it that the landlord would be better off, if he got the same rent in perpetuity than he would be if he only let under a lease for thirty-five years, and therefore, he thought, he would take less rent. There were certain outgoings which had to be calculated upon with a short lease. When the landlord got the land handed back to him there were certain improvements which would have to be done, such as drainage and so on, and that was a responsibility which the landlord would absolutely get rid of if he got the same rent in perpetuity instead of granting a lease for thirty-five years. There was no doubt about it that if one had a perpetual rent of £100, it would sell for a larger price than a rent of £100 a year on a farm for a limited period. Therefore he thought the landlord would be prepared to let the land at a cheaper rate for the longer period than he would on a lease for thirty-five years. In his opinion it would be well to give the county council the power of getting the advantage of a longer lease than was provided for by the Bill, and he thought it would be advisable for the Government to accept the Amendment.
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,) South Shields
said he was not by any means certain that there was quite the community of opinion which was supposed between the Leader of the Opposition and hon. Members below the gangway, because the right hon. Gentleman spoke, as an individual Member, in favour of perpetual leases, and said that a perpetual lease was a form of modified purchase. He would 1341 like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be willing simply to extend the option of the county council. Looking at the question on its merits he admitted that there was a good deal to be said on both sides, and it was not a question by any means easy in regard to striking the balance of advantage. That which operated with those who proposed the clause was that a perpetual rent would have to be paid, no matter what the subsequent movement of prices might be, and the county council would probably hesitate to commit themselves to a stereotyped perpetual rent which might work out as an increased purchase money. If they spent a larger sum in purchase money the land would still be liable to the right of resumption, and when all the arguments were taken into account he was of opinion that if they were going to have a hiring system at all it was desirable that they should have breaks in the tenancy. They gave the county council a great advantage—the county council had a right to renew and the landlords could not contest it. So far as security of tenure was concerned, the county council had a right to insist upon it. Therefore, although it was a matter of doubt, it seemed on the whole that it was to the advantage of the county council that the present system should obtain rather than the new system proposed by the Amendment.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)
said that as the debate developed the importance of the Amendment increased rather than diminished. He quite agreed that a one-sided provision for hiring in perpetuity would not be a fair arrangement. If this advantage was to be given to the county council, it was only fair that it should also be given to the landlord, who should be entitled to require a lease to be renewed in perpetuity. But if that were done another question would arise, and one point of great importance put by the mover of the Amendment and referred to by his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had not been touched upon by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. That point was that if the county council were to take a short lease they must charge 1342 the tenant such a sum as would recoup them for the expenditure incurred for equipping the holding, and therefore the charge would be heavier. That was a very important point, and he thought they ought to know what the answer of the Government was to it. If there was to be any considerable expenditure in order to start the small holder in a satisfactory way under a short lease the charge on the tenant must be very onerous, and he was curious to know how the Government met that criticism. The Solicitor-General had suggested that the proposal in the Amendment would lead to the rent being higher than an agricultural rent under a short lease system. He did not understand why that should be so. He agreed that the security offered by perpetual rent was so much better and more marketable and more easily dealt with for the purpose of rasing money than an ordinary agricultural rent that a perpetual rent should be something less than an agricultural rent. The only thing that could make it more would be the prospective increase in the value of the land. If agricultural land was taken for fourteen or twenty-one years and that land had a certain, rather remote, prospective building value, the rent of the land for the next fourteen years might be no more than the ordinary agricultural rent. It was only where there was a prospective building value in the near future that the rent could be more than the agricultural rent. But that could never be, because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out, any prospective building value would be dealt with under the powers of resumption and not in the lease. Therefore he could conceive no circumstances which would tend to make a perpetual rent charge greater than an agricultural rent. Where land was likely to be resumed for building purposes the perpetual rent charge would be of no value.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said that was of no advantage from his point of view, and it was not a system that would recommend itself to the county 1343 councils or the landlords. If a perpetual rent charge was fixed they would have in such cases as that to introduce some modification which removed the power of resumption. He did not think the system as proposed in the Amendment and explained in the speech of the mover was applicable to building land, having regard to the other conditions in the Bill. But he did not see why it should not be applicable and advantageous to everybody in the case of agricultural land which had no prospective building value, and where there was no probability of the power of resumption ever being exercised. He believed that if it were adopted in that case the landlord would obtain a readily marketable security such as he would not have under the Bill, and that an opportunity would be given to the county councils to obtain the land at a less price than they would otherwise have to pay for it, and consequently an opportunity of letting the land at a lower price. Hon Gentlemen below the gangway would not perhaps be in entire sympathy with all the observations he had made, and if he voted for the Amendment, and that would depend on the reply of the right hon. Gentleman and what might follow, his vote must be understood to be guided and qualified by the views he had set forth.
§ * MR. HARCOURT
said he would endeavour to reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman. It was quite clear that where a short lease was taken by the county council the terms of repayment for the buildings and equipment of the land would be very much heavier. If the county council were to take a short lease of fourteen years it clearly meant that in their opinion the matter was ratheran experimental one, and they would probably not proceed to erect expensive buildings on that land. They might lease land adjacent to buildings and attach it to them. A wise county council, and he believed they were all wise, when acquiring land on which building might take place in the near future, would either take a long lease or they might purchase a small quantity of land upon which they would put up the buildings and hire a certain amount of land to go with those buildings.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
asked whether it was contemplated that the county councils should purchase frontages and put buildings upon them, and hire the rest of the land and attach it to the buildings.
§ * MR. HARCOURT
said the right hon. Gentleman knew quite well that nothing of the sort was contemplated. He would like to point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was not at all of the same mind as the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Amendment. He did not want what they wished. The effect of this clause was to give the power to the county councils to hire land for fourteen years or any other number of years. On this question he had no strong feeling one way or the other. But in any case he thought it would entail some disadvantage, and he would continue to oppose the Amendment. He would like to offer a suggestion which had reference rather to the date at which they had arrived and the possible proceedings which might take place if he were to accept this Amendment. It was certain that a mere option to the county council to take a lease for fourteen years or in perpetuity would not be left in this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: Why? It had happened before and he might be permitted to argue, though he could not prove what was likely to happen in another place. What would probably happen was that either compulsion on county councils always to take a perpetual lease would be put in the Bill or else it would come back to this House possibly with the figure 35 or more probably with the figure 21. They would then find themselves once more engaged in the old game of battledore and shuttlecock with no advantage to themselves or to the Bill. Under those circumstances he hoped hon. Members would not press this proposal.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)
wished to say a word or two on behalf of the landlords who did not want to sell. Up to the present moment the whole debate had been about the landlords who wanted to sell their land. It was said that the Bill would make 1345 things better for the landlord because he would be able to mortgage any portion of his property. Naturally the landlord who did not want to sell would desire to take advantage of any opportunity he could have of resuming his own property, and as the Amendment, if carried, would make the landlord's power I of resumption less and interfere with his chance of resuming possession at the end of fourteen or thirty-five years, he certainly would not support it. Scanty and meagre as the justice meted out to landlords was it would be still more intolerant and hard if they refused them the powers of resumption given under the Bill as it stood. It was clear that if a perpetual feu was established the right of resumption for building purposes would still remain. What would happen to building land outside a town? The county council could take it only at the existing agricultural value because of the right of resumption. He had I heard the ominous words of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who indicated that there was a possibility under the Amendment of interference with that right of resumption. He had great fears of the possible tyrannical developments which might easily happen not under the right hon. Gentleman, but under the ægis of those who, in future years, might be his successors. It was not fair to expose to this danger landlords who did not want to sell and did not want the advantage of being able to get a better price or to mortgage their property, but who did desire to retain the right to resume, whenever a fair opportunity offered, possession of their land, which he was sure they could turn to better use in the interests of the community generally than all the county councils put together.
§ * MR. ALDEN (Middlesex, Tottenham)
said the only difference between the landlords whom the right hon. and gallant Gentleman represented and those who did want to sell was that one wanted an exorbitant price and the other a fair price. He did not sec why any landlord should be allowed to stand in the way of men who wished to get a living by the cultivation of the land and to increase the agricultural prosperity of the country. He differed from the right 1346 hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the effect of increasing the period of years. If it was increased in all probability the price would be increased. It was only necessary to ask those who had had experience to find out that the longer the term of years the more likely it was that they would have to give a higher price. Notwithstanding that fact, he still thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been wise to have accepted the Amendment, because it gave more elasticity to the whole clause. He could not conceive that any possible harm could accrue from cutting out the thirty-live years. If the right hon. Gentleman thought the House of Lords would put more difficulties in their way let him leave it to them; that was their business. It was the business of the House of Commons to make the Bill as good as possible. He doubted whether the House of Lords would find fault with this clause if amended. He felt sure that the adoption of this proposal would make the Bill more popular, and he would support the Amendment if it was pressed to a division.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
did not think the landlord would be injured in the way his hon. friend suggested by the Amendment. County councils already had powers to lease land in perpetuity. Surely it was much better both for the landlord and for the county council that any such arrangementshould come to an end at once. Upon the financial point he differed entirely from the view expressed by his hon. friend, who did not object to purchase. What would be the position of the county council which desired to purchase? Of course they would have to get the money; it was true that they would not require a large amount all at once; they would probably want a small sum, and they would go to their bankers for it, and pay interest at the rate of 5 or 6 per cent. They would not make arrangements with their bankers until they had such a large sum as would justify them going into the money market. Supposing the county councils could give a perpetual rent charge, they would not have to go to the market, and they could give it at a lower rate of interest than by borrowing in the market or from their bankers. They would not have to go to the State and 1347 compel the State to put their loan on the money market. It seemed to him that there would be no harm in that proceeding, because it was merely an option on their part. Hon. Members who desired to facilitate purchase ought to vote for the Amendment, because it would do away with the difficulty of being obliged to borrow money. They would be able to make their terms by way of perpetual annual payment which would be much easier for them and would not hurt the person who was to be dealt with. Under those circumstances he should support this Amendment.
§ * MR. DICKINSON (St. Pancras, N.)
said he was sorry his right hon. friend had not seen his way to meet those who had criticised this portion of the Bill. They all desired to make the measure a success. It was because they really felt that this extension of the power to county councils to take land for longer periods if they thought fit was necessary in order to supply land at a cheaper rent that they were pressing this point. One of the chief difficulties in the way of a local authority in carrying out work of this kind was due to the obligation to repay capital, and the obligation to borrow capital. He could not help thinking that a county council under the present circumstances of the money market would much rather take land at a perpetual rent than borrow money for the purpose of purchasing. This course would avoid all questions and difficulties in regard to the raising of the money and all obligations in regard to repaying the capital, although in the case of land the repayments of capital might be extended over eighty years, and it would make an appreciable difference in the rent charged. But there was a still more important consideration with respect to the application of capital for the development of small holdings. Under the Bill the Local Government Board was authorised
|Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)||Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.||Bridgeman, W. Clive|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Beck, A. Cecil||Brigg, John|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Bellairs, Carlyon||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.||Burns, Rt. Hon. John|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Berridge, T. H. D.||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Carr-Gomm, H. W.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Bramsdon, T. A.||Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Branch, James||Cave, George|
§ to extend the period to fifty years, but unless the public body had greater security of tenure he felt sure the Local Government Board would insist upon the money borrowed being repaid within a much shorter period than fifty years. That would place a serious difficulty in the way of the local authority letting the land at cheap rents. He hoped the Government would see their way to reconsider this point. He did not think that the presage made as to the action of the other branch of the Legislature need affect the question at all. If that branch of the Legislature intended to give to the landowners the power to compel any local authority to take over land on a perpetual lease they would do so with the Bill as it stood. He thought they would be able to alter that decision if such a proposal were to come back to them; but sufficient for the day was the evil thereof. He thought it would be a good thing it they gave the option to the county council to extend the repayment to any length of time which they thought was best in the public interest.
§ MR. WEDGWOOD
said that what they were proposing by this Amendment was to urge the Government to extend a little more confidence to the county councils. If the Government would take their whips off, and allow the Party to vote as they thought fit upon this question, it would be found that the Amendment would receive a large amount of support.
§ MR. BECKETT
said that what they desired was perpetuity, and he failed to see how by voting for this Amendment they would bring that about.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Aves, 165; Noes, 125. (Division List No. 415.)1351
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Centr')|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Chance, Frederick William||Jardine, Sir J.||Pullar, Sir Robert|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Radford, G. H.|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'|
|Clough, William||Kekewich, Sir George||Rees, J. D.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.||Kendall, Athelstan|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh' m||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Laidlaw, Robert||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.||Lambert, George||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)||Lamont, Norman||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Cory, Clifford John||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)||Runciman, Walter|
|Cox, Harold||Lewis, John Herbert||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Sears, J. E.|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Lough, Thomas||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Crossley, William J.||Lupton, Arnold||Sherwell, Arthui James|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lyell, Charles Henry||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Edwards, Clemert (Denbigh)||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Elibank, Master of||Maclean, Donald||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Erskine, David C.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)|
|Essex, R. W.||M'Callum, John M.||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||M'C'rae, George||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Strauss, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Fell, Arthur||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Fenwick, Charles||M'Micking, Major G.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Maddison, Frederick||Taylor, Theodore G (Radcliffe).|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Mallet, Charles E.||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Findlay, Alexander||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)||Verney, F. W.|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Marnham, F. J.||Walters, John Tudor|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Massie, J.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Molteno, Percy Alport||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herber Jn.||Montagu, E. S.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Grant, Corrie||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Gretton, John||Morley, Rt. Hon. John||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Brampton||Morpeth, Viscount||Wills, Arthut Walters|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Morse, L. L.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Parcras, S.)|
|Harvey, A. G. G (Rochdale)||Myer, Horatio||Winfrey, R.|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Napier, T. B.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Nicholson, Charles N (Doncaster)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||TELLERS TOK THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Pollard, Dr.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Byles, William Pollard||Ffrench, Peter|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Forster, Henry William|
|Alden, Percy||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Gill, A. H.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Wore.)||Glover, Thomas|
|Ashley, W. W.||Cheetham, John Frederick||Gordon, J.|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Clynes, J. R.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Hall, Frederick|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Cowan, W. H.||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Craik, Sir Henry||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Baring, Capt. Hn G (Winchester)||Crooks, William||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Curran, Peter Francis||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Beauchamp, E.||Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N.||Hazel, Dr. A. E.|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Helmsley, Viscount|
|Bell, Richard||Doughty, Sir George-||Hendeison, Arthur (Durham)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.||Higham, John Sharp|
|Black, Arthut W.||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury).|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Hills, J. W.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Esslemont, George Birnie||Hornby, Sir William Henry|
|Brace, William||Evans, Samuel T.||Hudson, Walter|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Jowett, F. W.||Morrell, Philip||Snowden, P.|
|Kelley, George D.||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield||Steadman, W. C.|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Nolan, Joseph||Summerbell, T.|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny).||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Lehmann, R. C.||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.||Vivian, Henry|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin. S.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Lowe, Sir Francis William||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Walsh, Stephen|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Magnus, Sir Philip||Robertson, SirG. Scott (Bradf'd||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Shackleton, David James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Ellis Davies and Mr. Seddon.|
|Moore, William||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton|
§ *MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston) moved to omit the words at the end of Subsection (3) providing that confirmation by the Board of Agriculture of an order under the section should be conclusive evidence "that the order has been duly made and is within the powers of this Act." He said the effect of those words if retained in the clause would be that an order made by a county council, even though beyond its powers, and clearly in breach of the restrictions of this Act, when once confirmed by the Board of Agriculture, could not be questioned by anybody. If, for example, an order infringed Clause 30, which imposed restrictions on the kind and amount of land to be taken from the owner, and if that order were confirmed by the Board of Agriculture, it should, he thought, be in the power of the aggrieved party to object. Again, under the schedules certain things were to be done under the powers contained in the Lands Clauses Acts, and if an order were made which violated the provisions of tho3c Acts, in so far as they were applicable to this measure, he did not think the order should become valid simply because it had been confirmed by the Board of Agriculture as having been "duly made." That was a point which anybody ought to have power to raise in a proper manner. He did not think Parliament should get into the habit of delegating to departments powers which really ought to be possessed by the Courts of Justice. If that had been done before, he did not think it 1352 should be done again. He begged to move.
* MR. GEORGE FABER (York),
in seconding the Amendment, said the illustration which his hon. friend had given in regard to the Lands Clauses Acts was to his mind conclusive that the words objected to ought to be omitted from the subsection. When a matter came before the arbitrator under the Lands Clauses Acts there might be an illegality, and in such a case an order when confirmed by the Board of Agriculture would prevent any of the parties from raising the question of the illegality if these words were retained in the clause. Each question, so far as its legality was concerned, should stand on its own merits, apart altogether from the opinion of the Board of Agriculture as to whether the terms of an Act of Parliament had been carried out or not.
In page 12, line 13, to leave out from the word 'with,' to the end of line 14."—(Mr. Cave.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said the Amendment came too late, because the words which the hon. Gentleman proposed to omit were necessary to the meaning of words already passed. These words were subject to a decision of the Board 1353 of Agriculture. The words of the subsection preceding those proposed to be left out were—An order when so confirmed shall become final, and have effect as if enacted in this Act and the confirmation by the Board shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with.The Government had followed precedent in this matter. It would be most inconvenient if an order when once confirmed, and which had given rise to various transactions in connection with the land, were liable to be impeached on some technicality of, it might be, a trivial or unimportant character which had preceded the confirmation of the order. A strong case had been put by the hon. Member for York where an arbitrator or a valuer had ignored requirements of the Lands Clauses Acts, but in such a case as that it might be assumed that the Board of Agriculture would not be likely to confirm the order. If the Board confirmed the order it would be open for the landlord or anyone concerned to ask the Court an injunction against the confirming of the order. Once it was confirmed it ought undoubtedly to be final. The words in the sub-section were the same as those contained in Subsection (7) of the Act of: 1894, dealing with an almost similar matter. There were also precedents in the Municipal Corporation Act and in statutes passed in 1888 and 1894.
§ MR. CHAPLIN
said he did not quite follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He said that once an order was confirmed it ought to be final. If that was so, what was the objection to accepting the Amendment? It was clear that no harm could accrue from the omission of the words. He had a strong suspicion that the words had not been inserted without some purpose. The subsection said that—The confirmation by the Board shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with.But the Board of Agriculture was not infallible, and if the requirements of the Act had not been complied with was the decision of the Board to override the Courts? If the Board happened to be wrong, then under the words of the 1354 clause there would be no possibility of getting its decision reversed.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said the right hon. Gentleman was in error in his application of the words. A landlord who apprehended that there had been an omission on the part of the county council of any proper technicality under the Bill would have an opportunity of informing the Board of Agriculture. If he had a strong case the Board could be asked to refuse to confirm the order on the ground that it was contrary to law, and if it refused to act the landlord might move the Courts for judgment against the confirmation of the order. What the right hon. Member for Wimbledon had referred to was provided for by Clause 30. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that these were entirely verbal Amendments and that he need not be under any apprehension about them.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N. R., Thirsk) said he was bound to admit that the explanation of the Solicitor-General did not leave him quite satisfied. It seemed to him that there was still a danger of the Board of Agriculture acting in an illegal way, leaving the landlord practically without remedy. The Solicitor-General had said that the landlord could bring an injunction against the Board, but there was no compulsion on the part of the Board to inform the landlord that they were going to confirm the order, and there might be no time to oppose it. That was rather a strong order. He had no doubt that the present Board of Agriculture could be trusted to be careful that the requirements of the Act were complied with, but he anticipated a time when the Board of Agriculture would be in the hands-of persons who would endeavour to avoid compliance with the Act if they could. He therefore thought that the Board of Agriculture should not be removed from the sphere of the ordinary Courts of Justice. It would be quite easy to provide a limit of time within which to make an application for an injunction.
§ Amendment negatived.1355
* MR. GEORGE FABER
said that he had an Amendment to Clause 26 to leave out of line 16 the words "or the creation of any new easement." It seemed to him that from one point of view these words would he beneficial while from another point of view, such as the creation of a right of way, they might be prejudicial. As the Amendment, therefore, did not fully carry out his intention he would not persevere with it.
*MR. ELLIS DAVIES moved to add to the end of Clause 16: "In assessing the rent to be paid in the case of land compulsorily hired under this Act, the valuer shall not take into account any increase in the value of the land due to the establishment by the council of other small holdings or allotments in the neighbourhood." What he wished to secure for the tenant was that his land should be held at an economic rent. At the present moment agricultural land in this country had two values—one an agricultural value which really belonged to it in virtue of its productiveness, and the other a monopoly value which was created, not by the tenant or the landlord, but by extraneous circumstances. In his own constituency 81 per cent. of the farmers were small holders, and the demand for small was three times as great as for large holdings. The result was that when a large holding was put up for sale it only realised £30 or £35 per acre, whereas as soon as a small holding of from ten to fifty acres came into the market the competition was so great that it fetched from £50 up to £100 per acre. The increased price was really not due to the special qualities of the soil but to the demand for small holdings. He contended that if this measure was to work satisfactorily it was essential that the tenants should not pay to the landlord more than was due to the inherent qualities of the land, and that the valuer in fixing the rent should leave out of account everything except agricultural value. The landlord could not complain, because he was protected; if the land was demanded for building or mining purposes he was entitled to resume it even under the provisions of this Bill. The principle of his Amendment was embodied in
Subsection (c) of Clause 27, with regard to the terms on which County Councils could renew their leases, and which provided that in assessing the rent the valuer should not take into account any increase in the value of the holding—
due to the establishment by the council of other small holdings or allotments in the neighbourhood.
For instance, if small holdings were created and succeeded there would be no doubt an increased demand for smaller holdings, and the object of the Amendment was to secure that the valuer should not have the power to take into consideration the fact of that increased demand deciding on the result of other proposed small holdings. He begged to move.
§ MR. MASTERMAN,
in seconding the Amendment, said that it was only natural and legitimate that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should be impatient with Amendments moved from that side of the House. But the right hon. Gentleman must have recognised that this question would be raised on the Report stage. From the thin attendance of hon. Members at the moment, it might be judged that there was not any conspicuous evidence of interest in the question; but he could assure hon. Members that many persons in the country were extremely interested in it. The associations more particularly connected with the agitation for the principle of betterment were very much concerned with the lack of any such provision as that embodied in the Amendment. When the question was raised in Committee upstairs the Amendment was supported by the Liberal and Labour Members. What was proposed was, in short, to make every endeavour to see that the increased value which was going to be made by the State by the creation of small holdings in any locality should not go to the landlords in the neighbourhood of that locality, but should go to the State or to the benefit of the small holders. That seemed to him to be an entirely fair proposition. There was nothing predatory in such a proposition, and it had been welcomed by the hon. Member for Rye. The Amendment was limited to hiring only, and had been 1357 already adopted in a Government Bill In the working of the Act of 1902 if the State or the county council established a colony of small land holders where there had been no small holders before—if the colony failed there was not much to be said, the county council had to bear the burden. But if it succeeded the immediate result was to create an increased demand for small holdings by the small holders themselves, and their children, and by those who had not been fortunate or sensible enough to obtain land for a small holding at the beginning of the experiment. These, seeing the success of the colony, came in and desired to share that success. What was the immediate result? The price of land went up in that neighbourhood immediately, and the small holders, instead of obtaining land at 14s., 15s., or 20s. an acre, found themselves compelled to pay 30s. or 35s. an acre. It was exactly the same problem which they had to deal with in regard to the slum properties in towns. Directly they started upon measures of this kind, it was inevitable that they must send the value of property in the neighbourhood up and double the price which it had cost to make the improvements. His right hon. friend the Member for Bordesley, when they were discussing this subject in Committee—he was sorry he did not support him then, but hoped he would do so now, because here they had a definite business proposal to place small holders on the land—said there was a distinction between small holdings and allotments.
§ MR. MASTERMAN
did not see the distinction. The result in either case was to send up the price of land, not only in the locality but throughout all England, a; they brought in the city or the county council, and it was right that the increased value due to the intervention of those bodies should not flow away to private owners. He did not object to increase of value going to anybody if they earned it. Small holdings consisted very largely of plots of land consisting of five or seven acres, and those who desired to have them and to cultivate them did not move about from place to place as the right hon. Gentleman 1358 said. The small holders in East Worcestershire came from the villages in which they resided and they wanted land in those neighbourhoods, and they did not want to go away from Worcestershire or Lancashire or the places where they were born. It was their demand, however, that was sending up the price of land and choking off the extension of small holdings. There was a grave danger that the operation of this Bill after a number of years might be choked by this particular process—by the very success that they achieved, by being compelled to compete against themselves. To prevent further competition, and to prevent the land being sent up in price so that the small holder would have to pay more for it, and have to compel his wife and children to work early and late in order to make a living, some Amendment of this kind should be adopted. It was said it would be difficult to disentangle the interests, but the Amendment of his hon. friend would do this. It ran—In assessing the rent to be paid in the case of land compufsorily hired under this Act, the valuer shall not take into account any increase in value of the land due to the establishment by the council of other small holdings or allotments in the neighbourhood.That was what they wanted. He did not think there was anything in the objection that this provision would sterilise transactions in regard to the buying and selling of land. That contention acted not only against betterment in regard to small holdings, but against any kind of betterment at all. He thought, however, that most hon. Members on that side of the House had made up their minds with regard to dealing with the question of betterment both in the towns and in the country, and surely that was not an insuperable difficulty. The land would be sold with certain charges upon it, actual or prospective, which in buying or selling would be accepted in connection with compulsion, equally as other risks were accepted in connection with compulsion at the present time and in connection with the value which the valuer to put on the land. He recognised that the vast majority of hon. Gentlemen opposite had really tried to clear away any real obstacle which might stand in the way of the working of a Small Holdings Bill, but under all the 1359 circumstances he begged to second the Amendment.
In page 12, line 20, at the end, to insert the words, 'In assessing the rent to be paid in the case of land compulsorily hired under this Act, the valuer shall not take into account any increase in the value of the land due to the establishment by the council of other small holdings or allotments in the neighbourhood.'"—(Mr. Ellis Davies.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. HARCOURT
said it was always unpleasant, as it had been his lot frequently that day, to refuse to accept the Amendments of his enthusiastic friends who were so seldom his supporters, but he was sure that they had the conviction in their minds that a Minister had sometimes to take into account some other considerations than those connected with the Amendment which they moved. He had not merely to secure the sulky assent of landowners but their general and willing assent. He had resisted this Amendment upstairs for reasons which had been quoted by his hon. friend but as they had failed to convince him it might be necessary to restate them. The first point was whether these proposals were just or desirable; secondly, were they practically possible; and, thirdly, were they necessary. He believed the acceptance of this Amendment would ensure the hostility of all holders of land and of corporations, charities and colleges, and of anybody who was possessed of it. It would raise hostility not only to small holdings on their own estates but to small holdings anywhere in their neighbourhood or anywhere in their county. This hostility would bring the Amendment into operation against their land were it to be put into the market under any circumstances whatever. Under this proposal a valuer in 1930 would have to find out what was the proper rent in 1907 and 1908, and what was the proper rent then, and that would be in his view impossible. The valuer would not only have to estimate the figures in regard to one county, but elsewhere. If this clause were included they would lose one of the most valuable provisions of 1360 the Bill, that rent was to be fixed by a valuer and not through the costly process of arbitration. He was not inclined to agree that there would be any appreciation of rent of land in consequence of small holdings. In the past, he admitted there had been an increase of rent due to the establishment of small holdings, but that had been due to the competitive demand for them due to a restricted supply. There had been no compulsion to acquire small holdings and to meet the demand, and therefore land could be capriciously withheld. But now, under this Bill, there would be no limitation of the supply where there was a demand. There was unbounded power to meet all reasonable demands. Therefore he felt forced to reject the Amendment on the grounds both of practicability and of necessity.
§ MR. CHAPLIN
said he was bound to admit that in his opinion the inferences drawn by the right hon. Gentleman were more likely to be right than those drawn by the hon. Member. The hon. Member had advocated this matter in Committee, but he had not carried his case much further that evening by his comparison of small holdings in various parts of the country, where the conditions of things in one case was not analogous to the condition in another. There certainly was some force in his argument that the principle had been accepted in another clause of the Bill. But he would point out that that clause related to renewals of leases already held. In that case it was possible to form some judgment as to the rise in the value of the land, because there was actual experience to go upon. But generally speaking, he would have thought that the establishment of small holdings throughout the country would tend rather to depreciate the value of land because the greater the number of small holdings the greater would be the competition and the less would be the value of the produce from the soil. The hon. Member had appealed to the House not to put any obstacle in the way of the creation of small holdings. Nothing could be further from their thoughts than to take any action of that kind. But the hon. Gentleman must prove the fact that he was right in his contention 1361 that this was a useful provision, and for his part he could not see that the hon. Gentleman had done so, to his satisfaction at any rate. So far as their bona fides were concerned, they gave proof of them in the Committee upstairs, when they accepted these words in the other clause.
§ * MR. DICKINSON
said he was glad to be able to say how much this great measure had been assisted in its passage through Committee by the co-operation of those who sat in Opposition. In this matter hon. Gentlemen opposite would naturally support the Government in the line they had taken. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was so convinced of the justice of his objection to this particular clause then surely he might leave the matter to the House to decide, in which case he believed it would be found that the majority was in favour of the Amendment. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman reminded him of those used thirteen years ago upon the question of betterment. After a good deal of argument they succeeded in convincing a Select Committee of the House of Lords of which Lord Halsbury was Chairman, of the justice of the principle of betterment. That was to say that where an unearned increment was due to the action of a public authority the public authority was entitled to reap some of the benefit of that increment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Amendment was unnecessary because he did not think there would be any increase in the value of the land owing to the action of the local authority. But the essence of the Amendment was that if any actual improvement did accrue to the land it should be taken into consideration. If it did not or there was any doubt about it, no one would suggest that anything should be taken away from the landlord and given to the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in 1930 it would be impossible for any valuer to lay down any rule to guide him as regarded a comparison of rents receivable then and rents receivable now. But nobody would ask that these improvements should be appropriated by the public except where there were small holdings in the vicinity 1362 which had brought about the improvement, and there would be no difficulty on the part of the valuer in ascertaining the fact that the increase in value was due to the existence of the neighbouring small holdings. To refer to the last argument, that if any benefit accrued to a particular piece of land by reason of the establishment of small holdings there ought also to be some provision by which a landowner whose property had depreciated by the introduction of small holdings should be compensated for the loss, nobody would object to the inclusion of such a provision. But he failed to realise the need for it, because all they wished to do was to deal with the landowner whose property had improved in value. Even if the landowner could show that property of other landlords had been depreciated in value that was no reason why he should not pay for the improvement created in his own land. Clause 29 of the Bill which dealt with the renewal of the tenancy provided that betterment should then be borne in mind by the valuer. It seemed to him that if this stood alone, it might operate very unjustly to the individual landowner. If they took a holding from the landlord now, they were to put him under the condition that on the expiry of the tenancy he should reap no improved value from the institution of the surrounding small holdings; but other people whose land was not now taken were to be able to appropriate to themselves the improved value which was due to the institution of small holdings. It seemed to him that they were bound to be just all round, and if such justice was not carried out he suggested that there would be a very great tendency on the part of the land owners to hold aloof and object to their land being used in any way for the purpose of small holdings. He need not say that it was with very great regret that they had to differ from the right hon. Gentleman, to whom they were very grateful indeed for having so earnestly and so successfully carried this measure through Committee; still, those who did feel very strongly on this point were forced to express their opposition to this proposal.
§ * MR. JESSE COLLINGS
said the speech to which they had just listened and 1363 the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Amendment, disclosed that in the discussion of this question confusion was created by mixing up allotments with small holdings. The two were altogether different things. Allotments must, of course, be in the neighbourhood where the men were employed, for they were of no good if they were a mile or two away. Allotments were very small; in many localities five or six acres of land were cut into allotments, and probably that quantity of land was sufficient for the requirements of the place. But small holdings might be anywhere; they were not confined to any particular part of the county. The county council could range over their whole area for a farm or any land that was to be sold and which they could buy for small holdings. The hon. Member had mentioned Catshill. He thought he knew Catshill and neighbourhood perhaps rather better than he. There were no means of knowing whether that small colony had increased the price of land in the neighbourhood except from this fact, which occurred within the last twelve months, to his knowledge: A neighbouring farm was sold; it was a farm of 200 or 300 acres, and it was bought at a very low price. But of course the county council were not foolish enough to go alongside Catshill to found another colony. They had within the last three months bought another small estate, and that was right away in another part of the county; and he knew it was the intention of some members of the county council to have other small colonies, but not alongside those they had already created. If his hon. friend the Member for West Ham and other speakers would bear in mind that county councils had only to look out for land, they would find that there was enough of it. They need not consider the quality of the land, nor all the nonsense that was talked about small holdings being close to the town, and the labourers requiring every virtue if the holdings were to be a success. All these conditions were violated at Catshill. In fact, if the virtues that were required of an agricultural labourer, before he could have a small holding, were exacted in the case of a farmer, they would soon have a 1364 precious number of farms unlet. The expert evidence given before Lord Onslow's Committee by agents and others required these conditions. The agent of Lord Carrington stated that he would not let small holdings except to men of experience in cultivation. In this colony of Catshill, every one of these conditions had, as he had said, been violated; yet the colony had been a complete success for twelve years, and the men were saving money. The land at Catshill was poor, and the price was high. It was about twelve miles from any large city; indeed, all the conditions were unfavourable—the repayment was based on 4 per cent., a high rate. He wanted the hon. Member for North West Ham and those who were of his way of thinking to remember that when a county council wished to buy land they had only to look at the papers to see columns of properties for sale. Then where was the difficulty? County councils could pick and choose throughout the country, and all that was wanted was that the holdings should be within reasonable distance of a railway station, or within carting distance of a large town. His hon. friend had said that these small holdings, by reason of their success had sent up the price of land everywhere. He did not anticipate that there would be such a wide operation of this Act as to send up the price of land everywhere. If they had a system by which they could have 500 Catshills, that would send up the price of land, and he for one would not be sorry for that, because he could show that the price of land in any country was the true gauge, not of the aggregate amount of wealth in the hands of a few, but the only true gauge of the prosperity, health, well-being and good condition of the people. And that was the reason why across the Channel, not so far away as Northumberland, land had twice and three time; the value that land had here, because there were there not 200 but thousands of Catshills; the whole area of France and Germany was covered with Catshills. He for one would be delighted if the same cause sent up the price of land here, because what did it mean? It meant that the price was the result of the increased productiveness. Apart from fruit and wine growing in Germany 1365 and France, if they took like for like and area for area, the products of the two countries were twice in value what the products were in this country. Why should they object when the price of land went up through increased productiveness? He was afraid that he took a very national view of this question—too national to go and clip a landlord here and a landlord there. To him the financial question was insignificent compared with getting the people back to the soil on proper conditions. Where did the "patriotism" come in? They ought to take a more national view of the question. It was a question not only of benefiting the labourer and the farmer, but of saving the country and creating a first, second, and third line of defence. If he could have his way he would send out a man corresponding to a recruiting sergeant into the great centres of industry and instruct them to find suitable cultivators of the soil. He would then, through the State and in the national interest, provide them with money on the same principle as he would vote money to build an ironclad or erect fortifications. In talking about small holdings the danger which had been suggested could never exist because they had the whole area to pick and choose from. In many districts they would find land for sale at a very low price indeed. He saw an instance in Devonshire the other day where land went begging at £10 an acre, and it was ultimately sold at £6. an acre. If the Devonshire County Council had bought 500 acres of that land and created small holdings upon it the difficulty would have been solved.
§ * MR. SPEAKER
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is taking a very unusual amount of latitude in regard to the point before the House.
§ * MR. NAPIER (Kent, Faversham)
said that if on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman would stick to his guns, he would receive a large amount of conscientious support from the Ministerial Benches, as well as the usual official support. Hon. Members must have been struck with the impracticability of the Amendment. Let them consider for a moment a period of twenty years after the Bill had been in force. Supposing the county council 1366 then required land for small holdings. A valuer would be called in, and he would have to inquire what the price of land was in that district twenty years be fore. It was not always easy to ascertain the price of land so far back as twenty years. They might have to subpoena all sorts of persons to produce leases which were made twenty years back. The valuer would then have to say how much of the rise in value was due to the creation of small holdings. That would be a most difficult thing to do. Land varied very much, and there was occasionally a period when the price of land was going up owing to a number of causes, but the only cause the valuer could take into account would be the rise in value through the establishment of other small holdings. That was a matter which would have to be arrived at by an arbitrator, and the cost of ascertaining that would add very considerably to the price of the land, and render the whole scheme more expensive. The Amendment itself, if it was really intended to have effect, was not very judiciously worded. Why should the valuer take into account only the rise in value owing to the action of this particular county council? Why should he not consider the action of all county councils? Supposing in the next county a series of small holdings were established, and they had caused the value of land to rise. Why should the valuer take into account the rise in value for the adjoining county, and not the increased value of small holdings in the county for which he was acting? Reference had been made to betterment. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras desired to apply to agricultural land the conditions which had been applied by several Acts of Parliament to London. He did not think the principle of betterment could be usefully applied to land in the country. It had not been very useful in London, and the London County Council had got nothing worth speaking of out of it. For these reasons he strongly distrusted the acceptance of an Amendment of this kind, because the principle was wrong. If when they were going to do anything by an Act of Parliament which would raise the value of land, were they going to say that any rise in value caused by the Act should 1367 not be taken into account if the land was compulsorily acquired for public purposes? That might be a good principle, but it was one which it was impossible to apply in practice. It often happened that the value of land went down, and therefore this was a principle which ought to apply both ways in order to be fair.
§ * MR. WEDGWOOD
said he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Faversham with great interest, and he would like to reply to one or two of the difficulties which had been raised. In the first place there was the question of the practicability of the Amendment, and whether it was possible to decide if the increase in value of any piece of land was due to the small holdings in the neighbourhood. That principle was already, he was thankful to say, established in the Bill as it stood. Clause 27, Sub-section 2, read as follows:—In assessing the rent to be paid under this section the valuer shall not take into account any increase in the value of the holding (c) due to the establishment by the council of other small holdings or allotments in the neighbourhood.That provision was added to the Bill in Committee without opposition and referred to the renewal of the leases for small holdings, so that in the case of a small holding or allotment of two acres when the lease expired the rent could not be raised against the council by the landlord for that increase which was due to allotments or small holdings in the neighbourhood. Therefore it was assumed by the framers of this Bill that it was practicable to decide and allow for increase in value due to the success of small holdings. All they asked was that not only should it be practicable to judge of that increased value in the release of two acres, but also when that increase of two acres into five by the addition of adjoining land. In both cases they desired that the success of allotments should not add to the price the council had to pay, or to the price the tenant had to pay to the council. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill objected to the Amendment on the ground of justice and importance. He would take first the ground of justice. He said with a great deal of truth that if they allowed betterment they must also allow worsement. The only satisfactory 1368 way out of that difficulty was to tax land values. That did not take into special account betterment or worsement but dealt with both in a satisfactory way. They could not tax land values yet, and therefore they must do the best they could with this doctrine of betterment and worsement. He thought that all hon. Members who understood the question would agree that it was not possible to cause worsement in this case. The case they were considering was the investment of public funds and the increase of population in a neighbourhood. No ease for worsement could ever be made out against the expenditure of public funds in the neighbourhood where those funds were spent. Worsement generally occurred through changing the character of streets in a town, so that the property in the old street which used to be an important street before the new street was made fell in value. There was another factor which, to his mind, was even more conclusive, as to the increase in the value of land due to the extension of small holdings. The careful calculations he had made went to show that land values in nearly every country in the world depended upon the density of the population, and varied with the number of workers in any given district. The more workers there were residing on the land and creating the land value the higher would be that value. The object of small holding legislation was to increase the population on the land, and therefore the result of legislation of the kind proposed in this Bill must be to increase and not decrease the price of land. In this instance therefore they might ignore worsement because it was almost certain never to occur, and they might reasonably take into account the claim for betterment alone. Another objection had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He had said that it was unnecessary to put this clause in because there would be no important rise in the value of land attributable to small holdings. That if land values rose it would be from other causes. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to a case in Scotland where the value had been increased through the land being turned to the cultivation of raspberries. 1369 That experiment showed that raspberries could be profitably cultivated. Here it was proposed to spend public money in the creation of small holdings, and the expenditure on that experiment was absolutely going to raise land values, just as the experiment with raspberries raised the value of the land in the case to which his right hon. friend referred. As certainly as these experiments were successful, so certainly were they going to result in betterment which should come back to the State or to the community which gave the betterment. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that small holdings under previous Acts did increase the value of land, but he said that the value of land would not increase under this Bill, because there were compulsory powers involved in it. He argued that previously a landlord could refuse to sell his land for small holdings, and could not be compelled to do so, and that therefore conditions which formerly increased land values were not now applicable. It was argued that they would now, under this Act, see to the proper use of land and the proper extension of small holdings without any rise in land values. The idea that the inclusion of compulsory clauses in the Bill would cheapen land was, he thought, wholly wrong. He asked the House to consider for a moment what these compulsory powers meant. The Government hoped that they would facilitate the transfer of land, and that they would prevent land being held up and badly used, and that they would get the land turned to the best use. The compulsory clauses of the Bill were not only to facilitate the transfer of land, but to facilitate also its best use. He maintained that anything that facilitated the transfer of land and the putting of it to the best possible use must infallibly increase its value. If the facility with which land could be transferred was increased, and if the facility with which it could be put to the best possible use was also increased, it followed that the value of the land must be increased. Therefore he thought that the compulsory clauses would tend to increase the value of land even more than the successful or semi-successful extension of small holdings under previous Acts. That was an economic point. 1370 He held that the compulsory clauses did not obviate the risk of increasing land values. The question of betterment had been discussed by the London County Council many times, and the objection had been taken to the principle on the ground that if it were adopted the principle of worsement should also be taken into account. He admitted the force of that objection, but he thought that in this particular case it had as small a force as ever it had. He thought the principle of betterment might be introduced into this Bill in respect of new leases as well as in respect of releases.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY
said he differed from the hon. Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme for several reasons. In the first place it seemed to him an extraordinary hardship that land should be the only form of property which was not to be allowed to receive additional value from any circumstances which surrounded it. If the hon. Member opposite had money invested in the debenture stock of some Colony where gold happened to be found, and if the price of that stock rose from £100 to £110, would he be willing to pay back the increase of £10 as unearned increment to which he was not entitled?
§ MR. WEDGWOOD
said that the £100 lent, say, to New South Wales had probably enabled the discovery of gold to be made. He would, therefore, be assisting in making the discovery.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY
said he would be extremely glad if the £100 had such a result. But the fact remained that he of his own option had invested in that form of property and received a large increment of capital from that with which he had nothing to do. Unless the hon. Member was prepared to transfer the £10 to the purposes of the State, he hoped that they would hear no more about the increment that might accrue in the case of land. Too much had already been heard of that theory from those who did not possess land, and who followed a different line altogether in regard to the property which they did possess. The hon. Member had said he was in favour of the principle of worsement. If that was so, it should be introduced into the Amendment. 1371 He believed that in many directions the creation of small holdings would considerably lower the price of land. He was perfectly certain that where small holdings were a failure—and he was afraid that would happen in many cases where sufficient care was not taken and where proper circumstances did not exist—the result would be to lower the value of the land which had been worked successfully under larger occupation and with sufficient capital. The hon. Gentleman seemed to argue that density of population always made for an increase in the value of land. There were many cases in which the reverse happened. He granted that if it were density of well-to-do population, the land would increase in value; but if it were a poverty stricken population did the hon. Member think the land would increase in value? He thought it would decrease in value.
§ MR. WEDGWOOD
said it would increase, and in proof of that statement he would show the hon. and gallant Member tables if he would speak to him outside.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY
expressed the hope that the hon. Gentleman would at least allow him time to go to dinner before doing so. After all, the only test was the price which the land would bring if put in the market. An estate on which there were small holdings which had not been an economic success, if put in the market, would be found to have been heavily reduced in value. He was not arguing that small holdings might not be introduced with advantage in certain localities, but if the hon. Gentleman opposite wished to be fair, he must look also at the other alternative, and not simply adopt the attitude that land was a proper subject for spoliation and confiscation, which was a general attitude of those who held other forms of property.
§ MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)
said he had voted against this Amendment in Committee, and he was not to be deterred from taking the same course now because his name had been included in a "black list" in a Labour paper of those who had voted against it. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras had 1372 urged that the increased value of the land should go to the community. What was the community? He took it that the community was an aggregate of individuals, and that it would be contented, flourishing and safe, when the rights of individuals were scrupulously respected. He defied anyone to controvert that elementary proposition. He altogether demurred to the hon. Gentleman's comparison of town betterment with what would happen in the rural districts. The same point was continually taken by the hon. Member for North West Ham. The hon. Member wanted everything reduced to the "Ham standard." In Committee it had been pointed out time after time that that was not the object of the Bill. This Bill was to deal with small holdings, and not with allotments, and there was no use trying to reduce its fair proportions to an urban standard. Though sentiment was a very good thing sometimes, it did not do to be carried away by it in a matter of this kind. It was a very good servant but a very bad master of a man. Nothing was more likely to put the public, and particularly that section the sympathy of which it was most vital to enlist, against the experiment of small holdings than the introduction of such an Amendment as this, which flew in the face of every elementary economic principle. Under it, although there was an increase of value, the valuer was not to take it into account. How could they have economic standards for one class of holders and uneconomic standards for others? The acceptance of the Amendment would be perfectly fatal to the Bill and prevent its having a fair chance at all. The scheme put forward by the Government he believed would have a fair measure of success, but the Amendment, if carried, would deprive it of any possibility of success. It might be taken for granted that this scheme was experimental, and after some I years experience there would be time to consider any necessary modification of it. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would resist the Amendment now as firmly as he had done upstairs, and that he would receive in that the support of the great majority of the House.
§ Question put.1374
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, I 227. (Division List No. 416.)
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Paulton, James Mellor||Stanger, H. Y.|
|M'Callum, John M.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)|
|M'Crae, George||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Pollard, Dr.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Maddison, Frederick||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Magnus, Sir Philip||Pullar, Sir Robert||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Radford, G. H.||Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)|
|Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Thompson, J. V. H (Somerset, E.|
|Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)||Raphael, Herbert H.||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Valentia, Viscount|
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Verney, F. W.|
|Marnham, F. J.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Wadsworth, J.|
|Massie, J.||Rees, J. D.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th||Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton)|
|Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Rickett, J. Compton||Waring, Walter|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Morley, Rt. Hon. John||Roe, Sir Thomas||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Morse, L. L.||Rose, Charles Day||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Myer, Horatio||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Napier, T. B.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Winfrey, R.|
|Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)||Sears, J. E.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Nicholson, CharlesN (Doncast'r||Seely, Colonel||Younger, George|
|Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Nolan, Joseph||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Shipman, Dr. John G.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Nuttall, Harry||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton|
§ *MR. CAVE moved the omission of Subsection (8). The effect of the subsection as it stood would be that when the county council had given notice to treat and the arbitrator had determined the price or rent, the county council, after seeing the arbitrator's award, might back out of the whole thing on paying the landlord compensation. That was entirely opposed to the existing practice under the Lands Clauses Acts. Under these Acts, when once a notice to treat had been given, the land was bound, and no one could deal with it until the price had been ascertained. If a would-be purchaser came along, the landlord must refuse to deal with him, and so also in the case of a tenant seeking a farm. In such an event, if the notice to treat were withdrawn, no amount of compensation could recoup the landlord, because, his loss could not be proved to an arbitrator, and great hardship might be caused, not only to the landlord, but to the sitting tenant. Let the House consider to what use the council might put this power. Having given notice to treat and obtained an award, they might then say, "We do not like the award, and unless you come down in price we shall 1376 withdraw from the whole thing." Thereupon, the owner having made his arrangements with a view to selling, might be compelled to reduce his price quite apart from the merits of the case; a result which would not be fair. The only argument in favour of the subsection was that it was said that by the Act of 1892 the council was bound not to purchase the land unless they saw their way to recoup themselves, and therefore they ought to have power to withdraw from the whole bargain. He did not think that was a sufficient reason for retaining the subsection. Of course the council ought to look forward to recouping themselves, but it was not right that, having made their estimate and found the price was higher than they thought, they should have the right to withdraw. Perhaps they might sustain some small loss, but half of that loss would be borne by the Treasury, and it was right that some loss should fall upon the county council as a penalty for having made the miscalculation. He did not think the county council should be allowed to back out of a liability which they had deliberately incurred. Since his Amendment appeared on the Paper the First 1377 Commissioner had put down a proposal to omit from one of the schedules the power of the county council when they gave a notice to treat to give also a notice to quit. He admitted that that proposal would remove one monstrous injustice which would otherwise have been caused by this subsection, because other wise when the county council had given the tenant notice to quit, and he had made arrangements for taking another farm, the county council could have with drawn their notice, thus leaving the tenant with two farms on his hands. That got rid of one argument against the subsection, but even the withdrawal of a notice to treat would disturb arrangements which had to be made a long time ahead. On these grounds he begged to move the Amendment.
§ * SIR E. BOYLE (Taunton)
seconded the Amendment, and said he supported everything that had been said by the proposer of it. The notice to treat I having been served, if the purchasing body altered their mind the one person who should be protected was the man whose land was compulsorily subjected to sale. The procedure proposed for the purpose of the transfer of land was quite different from anything which had yet been brought forward.
In page 13, line 1, to leave out Subsection (8) of Clause 26."—(Mr. Cave.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'by,' in page 13, line 7, stand part of the Bill."
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said his hon. friend had rightly said that under the Act of 1892 a county council, in taking land for the purpose of small holdings, was obliged to take it at such price only as would recoup them for their expenses. That was a proper enough thing under the Act of 1892, which did not contain any provision for compulsory purchase. But it was also desirable now that the Treasury undertook half the loss. It was desirable because under this measure the county council could not frame an estimate, as everything depended on the price and the rent, which were to be made the subject of arbitration, and 1378 perhaps there also might be made a claim for severance which would surprise the county council. Therefore they might find themselves, after waiting till the award was given, under conditions which compelled them to go on in contravention of the clause in the Act of 1892. That was, they would be obliged to take the land, but they could not recoup themselves in regard to the necessary expenses. Under these circumstances what was the best course to adopt? To compel them to go on at a loss, or to allow them to withdraw on paying compensation to the owner of the land if he had been subjected to any expense? To compel the county council to go on at a loss would clearly be inexpedient, and he thought they should be allowed to withdraw.
§ * SIR E. BOYLE
said the purchaser and every expert, would know very well whether the price was likely to be such as would allow the county council to go on.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said the hon. and learned Member must be aware that it was very difficult to find out what the price would be in the case of a claim for severance.
§ * SIR E. BOYLE
said that the purchasing body knew perfectly well, and the vendor knew perfectly well, whether there was any claim for severance or any other matter of that kind, but of course they did not know the quantum.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said that was his point, they could not know the quantum. They might know the value of the land and its rent, but they could not estimate the price which an arbitrator would give for severance.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
I do not think the hon. and learned Member would undertake to tell any client of his what an arbitrator would award for severance.
§ * SIR E. BOYLE
said the county council would have information on the subject 1379 They could ask the vendor and they would know what he asked for it.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
said that nobody would know what was going to be allowed, and the claim for severance would be enormous in some cases.
§ * SIR E. BOYLE
wished to assure the Solicitor-General that the danger he feared was one which did not exist. In all the new cases under the London County Council Act claimants had to set out what their claim was and how it was made up. Therefore the county councils would run no risk.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
did not think that anybody could assume that what a man claimed would be given on award. Because one had the claim it did not follow that they would know what would be the award. There were few subjects about which experts and surveyors differed more than this question of (severance, and the arbitrator had to decide between them. They might in making their estimate act upon excellent advice and perfectly reasonable opinion, the advice of surveyors and lawyers, and yet find themselves very much mistaken. Under those circumstances the question was, should they be compelled to go on at a loss or allowed to withdraw on paying compensation to the owner of the land for any loss which had been caused to him? If the county council withdrew, they were bound to give compensation to the owner for any expense he had been caused. To compel the county council to go on at a loss would obviously be inexpedient, and there was then in his judgment no alternative but withdrawal.
§ * SIR E. BOYLE
said that what was now proposed was that if an arbitrator awarded the landlord too little, the county council could take up the award, but if the arbitrator awarded him too much they could refuse to take it up. It seemed to him to be a case of "heads I win, and tails you lose."
§ MR. CHAPLIN
asked when lawyers differed who was to decide. With all respect to the Solicitor-General, it appeared to him as a layman that his friend behind him was right. If the hon. and 1380 learned Gentleman was right, they had an admirable and additional reason for supporting the omission of the clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that when a case of this kind arose there were only two alternatives. Either the county council was to be allowed to withdraw or they were to be compelled to proceed and to suffer the loss. But the hon. and learned Member had forgotten the other party interested, namely, the person from whom the land was taken and who was to be compensated. What guarantee was there that they were giving to that man anything like the amount of money necessary to compensate him for the position in which he was placed? He had received notice to quit, greatly to his regret, and he saw nothing for it but to make the best arrangements he could. He might possibly have sold his house and given up his home, and perhaps already taken another farm in another place and removed there, and then the thing was to be thrown over at the last moment. It seemed to him that if that were done on anything like a large scale it would be far cheaper for the county council to accept the original loss than to incur the risks of such compensation as would be necessary if justice was to be done in such a case as he had suggested. This was an entirely new departure from existing practice, and he did not see the necessity for it. He would have thought it was the simplest thing in the world for the county council to employ competent men to ascertain what was going to be the cost before they entered into the bargain. The difficulty was said to be a question of severance, but severance was a question which was dealt with every week in the year. If his hon. friend went to a division he would certainly support him.
§ MR. HARCOURT
thought that when the right hon. Gentleman said it was an easy thing to make an estimate of what an arbitrator would do in a case of this kind he was a little wide of the mark. The general experience was that there was usually a great disparity between the figures of the claim and the amount of the award, and it would be quite impossible to arrive beforehand at a definite figure which would enable the county council 1381 to say that they would either go on or abandon their point before they came to the award. The right hon. Gentleman had, he thought, argued this question without due reference to the Amendment which appeared a little lower down on the Paper in his name. He had spoken on the assumption that the county council had given the tenant notice to quit. In order to meet the two points which the right hon. Gentleman had raised in Committee he had put down an Amendment to omit Paragraph 5 of the schedule, and that removed altogether the power of the county council to give a sitting tenant notice to quit, so that would have to be done by the landlord. Then, when the county council became the owner of the land so far as the tenant's interest in remaining portion of the time (a few months) before the expiry of his notice was concerned they could buy that out.
§ MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)
admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had gone a long way to meet hon. Members in moving the omission of Paragraph 5 of the schedule, but that did not remove the objection they had to this clause.
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Bramptn|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Cremer, Sir William Randal||Hall, Frederick|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Crooks, William||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.||Crossley, William J.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Curran, Peter Francis||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Davies, Ellis Williams (Eifion)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.|
|Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)||Ravies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Harworth, Arthur A.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Hazel, Dr. A. E.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Bell, Richard||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Dobson, Thomas W.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Benn, W.(T'wr Hamlets, S. Geo.||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Henry, Charles S.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Higham, John Sharp|
|Bertram, Julius||Edwards, Clement (Dembigh)||Holt, Richard Durning|
|Bcthell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Black, Arthur w.||Elibank, Master of||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Essex, R. W.||Hudson, Walter|
|Brace, William||Esslemont, George Birnie||Idris, T. H. W.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Evans, Samuel T.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Branch, James||Everett, R. Lacey||Jardine, Sir J.|
|Brigg, John||Fenwick, Charles||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Ferens, T. R.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Ffrench, Peter||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Findlay, Alexander||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Fuller, John Michael F.||Jowett, F. W.|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Fullerton, Hugh||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Cleland, J. W.||Gill, A. H.||Kelley, George D.|
|Clough, William||Glover, Thomas||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Clynes, J. R.||Gooch, George Peabody||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Grant, Corrie||Lamont, Norman|
§ They objected to the county council being entitled to back out of a bargain of this kind in a way nobody else had a right to do. A railway company having entered into arrangements with a landowner to take his land was not entitled to back out of that arrangement, and if the railway company found they could not use the land they had either to keep it or get rid of it in the best way they could. He failed to see why county councils should be put in a better position than anybody else. If they were foolish enough to enter into a bad bargain they should be compelled to pay for it.
§ MR. HARCOURT
said the reason why it was necessary to put the county councils in a different position from other owners was that under this Bill the county councils were under a disability in acquiring land. They could only acquire land at such a price that they could let it. That was an obvious reason why the county councils should be relieved.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 200; Noes, 39. (Division List No. 417.)
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Summerbell, T.|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Pollard, Dr.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Lough, Thomas||Pullar, Sir Robert||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Lupton, Arnold||Radford, G. H.||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Raphael, Herbert H.||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Lynch, H. B.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Verney, F. W.|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Rees, J. D.||Vivian, Henry|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs||Rendall, Athelstan||Wadsworth, J.|
|Maclean, Donald||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Richads, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||Walsh, Stephen|
|M'Callum, John M.||Rickett, J. Compton||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|M'Crae, George||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincold)||Wardle, George J.|
|M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Waring, Walter|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd||Waterlow, D. S.|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Maddison, Frederick||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Weir, James Galloway|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Roe, Sir Thomas||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Mansfield, H. Rendal (Lincoln)||Rogers, F. E. Newman||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Rose, Charles Day||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax|
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Marnham, F. J.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Massie, J.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Sears, J. E.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Morley, Rt. Hon. John||Seddon, J.||Wilson, Johns (Durham, Mid|
|Morse, L. L.||Shackleton, David James||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Myer, Horatio||Sherwell, Arthur James||Winfrey, R.|
|Napier, T. B.||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Newnes, F (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Simon, John Allsebrook||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Nolan, Joseph||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Snowden, P.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Nuttall, Harry||Stanger, H. Y.|
|O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)|
|Acland-Hool, Rt Hn. Sir Alxe. F.||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fletcher, J. S.||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Balcarres, Lord||Forster, Henry William||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Gordon, J.||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore.)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Smith, F. E. I Liverpool, Walton)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Turnour, Viscount|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)||Hunt, Rowland||Valentia, Viscount|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Wilson, S. Stanley (York. E. R.)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Dublin, S.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Cave and Sir Edward Boyle.|
|Fell, Arthur||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
§ MR. HARCOURT said the next Amendment which he moved was in fulfilment of a promise which he had given upstairs in reply to what he considered a reasonable request as to the limit of time during which the county council should withdraw after determination of the amount. He had put in six weeks.
In page 13, line 7, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'at any time within six weeks after the determination of the amount.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. HARCOURT said the next Amendment which he moved had already been explained by him on a previous Amendment, and it was also in fulfilment of a promise he had given upstairs.
In page 13, line 9, to leave out the words 'and any notice to quit served on any tenant.'"—[Mr. Harcourt.)
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
In page 13, lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words 'or to quit, as the case may be.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
§ * SIR E. BOYLE,
on the subsection providing for compensation for loss or expenses incurred in the event of withdrawal of notice to treat, moved to omit the words requiring the valuation to be determined by a single valuer and substituting instead arbitration. He submitted that owners and purchasers ought to be represented in the ordinary way at an arbitration; each side had a right to be protected by its own arbitrator. As the clause stood the owner had taken from him that right to protect his own property which he had always possessed.
§ MR. HICKS BEACH,
in seconding the Amendment, said it appeared to him that in a case of this kind both sides were entitled to be properly and fairly represented. Under a valuation, as he understood, neither side had an opportunity of hearing the arguments of the other, and therefore, could not reply to them. He did not see that any material expense would be incurred by the county council in employing an arbitrator instead of a valuer, and it certainly would have the advantage of removing any cause of bad feeling that might occur if each party concerned were not allowed to state their case as fully as they pleased in answering the arguments of the other side.
In page 13, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words 'valuation by a single valuer appointed by the Board,' and to insert the word 'arbitration.'"—(Sir E. Boyle.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."1386
§ MR. HARCOURT said that, while not agreeing with hon. Members opposite as to the merits of an arbitrator or a valuer generally, he did agree that this was a case in which each of the parties were entitled to an arbitrator. He fully maintained his opinion, however, as to the cheapness of the valuer. This was one of the cases, however, where he thought there should be arbitration, and he therefore accepted the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. HICKS BEACH
in moving the omission of Clause 27 (power to renew tenancy of land acquired compulsorily), said he did so because he did not see what reason there was why the county council, after having compulsorily acquired the land for thirty-five years, should be able, at the end of that period to renew the lease for another period of thirty-five years. It practically meant that the county council might have a perpetual lease of the land entirely against the will of the owner, and the landlord had no option at all to sell the land to the county council. He thought that in cases where the county council wished to renew their tenancy of the land which bad been compulsorily hired, they would do so only where the holdings had been a success. If the landlord still objected to leasing his land to the county council, he did not see why the county council should not listen to his wishes in some way and buy the land outright. Where the holdings were a success, surely it would be no hardship on the county council after the period of thirty-five years to raise a loan and buy the land outright. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would either reject this clause or accept the Amendment of his right hon. friend below him to the effect that if the landlord wished it, at the end of the lease, the county council should buy the land. The whole interest of the landlord in his property would be taken away by this compulsory hiring of land by the county council; he would have absolutely no control over it himself, and he would be deprived of the whole pleasure of ownership. In place of that he would get an annual rent, which the right hon. Gentleman said would be very 1387 valuable, because it would be secured on the rates. He did not believe that this would be any attraction to anybody who wished to purchase the estate. People only bought estates because they wished to possess them, to have complete control of them, and to do with them what they thought best. If a landlord had a portion of his estate compulsorily taken from him for thirty-five years, he would be deprived of the whole pleasure of it, and he would very likely put it up to auction. Its value would be materially decreased, because nobody would be anxious to buy it simply to be able to receive rents. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision, and at any rate, if he did not agree to omit the clause, accept the Amendment of his right hon. friend.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.) said the right hon. Gentleman opposed the proposal which had just been made, but even that was fairer to the owner who was supposed to part with his land on lease to the county council, because under that scheme he would have had a fixed rent charge which would have been certain and permanent. Under this proposal not only was the owner deprived of his; property, but he only got a rent charge for an indefinite period. The owner would not be in a position to raise money on the rent charge. It was obvious that it would be an advantage to the county council to be able to acquire the land without having to raise money by way of loan, but it was not fair, in order to save the county council from the obligation of raising a loan to pay for the land to throw that obligation on the owner. It could not be so good a security if the land might be returned on the owner's hands. If the money had to be raised it should be raised by the county council who leased the land and not by the owner. One of the rights of property was I that the owner should be able to sell it I and use the proceeds for some other pur-pose. It used to be one of the tenets of the Liberal Party that land should be easily saleable. It had already been pointed out that under this proposal very great difficulties would be put in the way of the sale of land. It would be very hard to sell land from which all 1388 the advantages that a purchaser looked to when he was proposing to buy land had been removed. Most hon. Members had seen new estates being developed. He knew an instance of three estates where the land used to belong to a number of small and independent freeholders. What led to their formation? The creators of those estates were men who had made money and had bought estates for pleasure. It was beside the point to debate it, but that was the motive which influenced a great number of persons who went into the market to buy land. If by removing all the rights of property in land and the pleasures they carried with them, I they diminished the desire to purchase they would help to sterilise the price. He opposed this clause because it conferred real ownership without the proper price being paid for it. This system of compulsory hiring entailed a great number of qualifications with regard to the fixing of rent when the term was renewed. None of those qualifications would have been necessary if the county council had bought the land outright. Subclause (c) laid down, "that the establishment by the council of other small holdings or allotments in the neighbourhood," should not be taken as a reason for increasing the rent. They had debated the principle of betterment on another clause and it was shown clearly that whatever might be said for the abstract principle, in actual practice it was almost hopeless to put it into operation in this case because of the impossibility of saying to what the increase in value was due. He was sure any valuer would find the greatest difficulty in attempting to assess the increased value. This clause entailed all sorts of difficulties which would be avoided if the county council bought the land out and out, and for that reason he should vote for the striking out of the clause. If the State desired to reap the advantage accruing from any enhancement in the value of the land the proper way was to buy the land in the first instance. Under this measure if the land increased in value they could keep possession of it by re-hiring, but if the land diminished in value the county council had it in their power to throw it back on the hands of the owner. He did not think 1389 that was equal justice between the owner and the public. He begged to second the Amendment.
In page 13, line 22, to leave out Clause 27."—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word, 'valuation' in page 13, line 29, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. HARCOURT
said that they had inserted in the Bill the principle of compulsory hiring and had declined to insert leases in perpetuity. The reasons for the special renewal provision in Clause 27 was very simple. If the county council still had a need or a demand for the land, even if there were no renewal powers, they would go to the Board for another compulsory order of acquisition, and certainly they would receive an order for compulsory hiring. This clause contained a cheapening of the process for the advantage of the tenant, the county council, and the landlord. If the county councils were compelled always to buy the land which they acquired, they would be practically excluded altogether from the temporary use of suburban land, which was perhaps being let at an agricultural rent while not wanted for actual building purposes.
* MR. GEORGE FABER
said that on the broad principle it was a new departure in legislation to give an option to a local authority at the end of thirty-five years to continue a lease in perpetuity. Let the local authority have a trial trip for thirty-five years in order to see if small holdings could be made to pay. At the end of that time it was not unreasonable to ask that the lease should either be ended or that the property should be bought outright. This provision would hang a sword of Damocles over the landlord's head for all time. He would never know where he was, and he would have no power to resume possession of his property. This was not a double option; it was an option on one side. The landlord was to be at the mercy of the local authority. They were to determine whether they would continue the lease or not. He did not 1390 think that was fair. This was a national measure, and the House should endeavour to do justice so that no one should have any grievance. He knew that this clause contained the central principle of the Bill, and therefore he would be optimistic indeed if he imagined that the right hon. Gentleman would at the eleventh hour accede to the request of himself and his friends. The House, however, ought to look at the matter from the point of view of justice. The reason why the right hon. Gentleman was doing an injustice was that he wished to work this matter as economically as possible; he did not think that the local authorities would as a rule be in a position to purchase land outright, but that was a bad reason for inflicting injustice on the landlords.
§ MR. FELL (Great Yarmouth)
said he wished to refer to the unfortunate position in which the landlords would be placed if the land was taken for a period of thirty-five years. If the allotments were a great success, he did not think there would be very much doubt that the landlord would know some time before the expiry of the thirty-five years that the local authority would desire to lease the land again. But if they were only a partial success he would not know during the last year of the thirty-five years period whether the land was to be thrown back on his hands to be cultivated by himself or taken for the next thirty-five years. His son might be growing up, and it might be the intention that he should cultivate the land, but if the local authority said they were going to take a fresh lease for thirty-five years, the landlord's son would have wasted his time, because he would not be able to enter on the occupation to which he had been looking forward. That condition of extreme doubt and difficulty would prevail in all cases where allotments were only moderately successful. It would put I the owner of the land in a position which would be almost intolerable during the last year or two of the lease. A landlord might wish to take back some ground for the purpose of improving the amenities of his house, but under this clause he would not know whether he would be able to get it back. His wish to continue to reside at the place might depend largely on the question whether he could 1391 get the land he wanted round his house, but he would not know until near the expiration of the thirty-five years whether he would be able to get the land, and that was a position of hardship in which he ought not to be placed. On these grounds he supported the Amendment.
MR. E. GAEDNER (Berkshire, Wokingham)
was understood to say that the landlord at the end of thirty-
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Ffrench, Peter||M'Crae, George|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Find lay, Alexander||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Maddison, Frederick|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Fuller, John Michael F.||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Fullerton, Hugh||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Gill, A. H.||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Barlow, Sir John E.(Somerset)||Glover, Thomas||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Barry, RedmondJ.(Tyrone, N.)||Gooch, George Peabody||Marnham, F. J.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Grant, Corrie||Massie, J.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Bell, Richard||Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Montagu, E. S.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Hall, Frederick||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Morse, L. L.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Bertram, Julius||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)||Myer, Horatio|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Napier, T. B.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Newnes, F. (Notts. Bassetlaw)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Nicholson, CharlesN. (Doncast'r|
|Brace, William||Hazel, Dr A. E.||Nolan, Joseph|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Helme, Norval Watson||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Branch, James||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Brigg, John||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Henry, Charles S.||O'Donnell, O. J. (Walworth)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Higham, John Sharp||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Holt, Richard Durning||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Horniman, Emslie John||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hudson, Walter||Pollard, Dr.|
|Cleland, J. W.||Idris, T. H. W.||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh. Central)|
|Clough, William||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Pullar, Sir Robert|
|Clynes, J. R.||Jardine, Sir J.||Radford, G. H.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jenkins, J.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Rees, J. D.|
|Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Cowan, W. H.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Crooks, William||Kekewich, Sir George||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Crossley, William J.||Kelley, George D.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Laidlaw, Robert||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lamont, Norman||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Levy, Sir Maurice||Rose, Charles Day|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Lewis, John Herbert||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Lough, Thomas||Samuel, HerbertL.(Cleveland)|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Lupton, Arnold||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Elibank, Master of||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Sears, J. E.|
|Essex, R. W.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Seddon, J.|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)||Shackleton, David James|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Maclean, Donald.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Ferens, T. R.||M'Callum, John M.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
§ five years should have the right to ask the local authority to purchase the land outright. The clause as it stood would be unjust to the landlord, and he supported the Amendment because he believed it would in some measure obviate that injustice.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 202; Noes, 43. (Division List No. 418.)
|Simon, John Allsebrook||Verney, F. W.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Snowden, P.||Vivian, Henry||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Stanger, H. Y.||Wadsworth, J.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)||Walker, H. Do R, (Leicester)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Steadman, W. C.||Walsh, Stephen||Wislon, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Wardle, George J.||Winfrey, R.|
|Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Waring, Walter||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Summerbell, T.||Waterlow, D. S.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Weir, James Galloway||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Taylor, TheodoreC. (Radcliffe)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Torrance, Sir A. M.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Aeland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Faber, George Denison (York)||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fell, Arthur||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Fletcher, J. S.||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Balcarres, Lord||Forster, Henry William||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Gordon, J.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Gretton, John||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Valentia, Viscount|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Cave, George||Helmsley, Viscount|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Hicks Beach and Viscount Morpeth.|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hunt, Rowland|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.|
§ MR. HICKS BEACH
said he wished to move the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for Kingston to leave out on line 29 of Clause 27, "valuation by a valuer appointed by the Board," and insert "arbitration." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would favourably consider this Amendment, because he thought that both sides should have an opportunity of being fully heard.
In page 13, line 29, to leave out the words 'valuation by a valuer appointed by the Board,' and to insert the word 'arbitration.'"—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. HARCOURT
said he regretted he could not accept the Amendment. This was merely a question of fixing a fair rent on renewal of the lease. They had already agreed that a valuer was sufficient to fix the rent of the land already obtained, and 1394 a valuer was quite sufficient to fix a rent on renewal. There was no necessity for arbitration. The valuer would have to examine the various conditions that operated in fixing the rent. There was a great distinction between this Bill and that of 1894, because they had now a power of resumption of the land for industrial and other purposes, and therefore, the prospective value had not been considered by the person fixing the rent. By the procedure under the Bill they had a perfectly simple, everyday, commonplace decision of the valuator as to what was to be paid for this compulsory hiring. It was essential for the success of the scheme that legal processess, which were always unpleasant, necessary as they sometimes were, should be as economically conducted as possible.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CHAPLIN moved to add to the clause the following subsection; "(3) Within six months after the receipt of 1395 the notice mentioned in Subsection (1) of this section the landlord may, by notice in writing, require the council to purchase the land, and thereupon the council shall purchase the land as if the council had obtained an order authorising them to purchase the land, and had served upon the landlord a notice to treat in respect thereof." He said that it was very difficult to find any new argument in regard to the question which he was submitting to the House, although there might be many new arguments in regard to those clauses with regard to compensation which they had not and never would consider. On the particular subject before the House, he ex pressed his views last night as to the purchase of holdings, but the views which he sought to advance on this occasion had more weight than those which could be advanced in regard to purchase as a whole. Indeed, if they in that House did not consist of two political parties sitting on opposite sides the proposal had only to be stated to command general support. The proposal was this. Under the Bill powers were taken of compulsorily hiring land from the landlord for either fourteen or thirty-five years, and at the end of leases of that character powers were given to the county council to renew for a period of seventy years, for which period they were to all intents and purposes going to take over practical possession of the property of the landlord and to leave him no interest in his property except in regard to the rent which the county council might allow him. But that was not all; because at the end of seventy years the county council had nothing to do but to go to the Board of Agriculture and apply again for another period of seventy years. Such a system was certainly not much removed from perpetuity of tenure, although it was put on a different footing which would make it totally unsatisfactory to the landlord. He trusted he was not out of order in referring to what the right hon. Gentle man in charge of the Bill had said. He said it was a lease in perpetuity, but if it was a lease of that character he would on a previous occasion have given a different vote and gone into the opposite lobby to that which he did. If they 1396 took a man's property in perpetuity and converted him into a rent charger, they were bound in fairness and justice to pay him for his land, and except in a political assembly where party feeling ran high it would not be held that they should not do so. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the landlords could sell their property because they had at their back a guarantee for the payment of their rent from a solvent public body. He said, however, that property of that sort held under such terms offered practically no inducement to people to buy except as an investment. But they were only at the commencement of these proceedings, because they had to see if the experiment was a success. He hoped it would be, but he doubted it and he would require proof of it. He would require to see it a success in regard to the land which they were taking without payment. He wished to make one more appeal to the Government. When they came to the end of the first period of hiring, if the county council desired to renew their lease it practically meant that the experiment had been a success and that therefore they would want to keep the land for all time. In those circumstances he could not understand the refusal to compel the county council to pay the landlord in cash the value of his property.
In page 14, line 11, at the end, to insert the words '(3) Within six months after the receipt of the notice mentioned in Subsection (1) of this section the landlord may, by notice in writing, require the council to purchase the land, and thereupon the council shall purchase the land as if the council had obtained an order authorising them to purchase the land, and had served upon the landlord a notice to treat in respect thereof.'"—(Mr. Chaplin.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR W. ROBSON
admitted, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that at this stage of the proceedings it was not easy to find any new arguments in regard to the Bill, and the same remark applied to this proposal which was rather more startling than that which preceded it. 1397 It was that the council should be compelled to purchase at the end of the first period. They were familiar with the argument that the owner should be compelled to sell to the public authority, but it was a novel proposal that the public authority should be compelled to purchase. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, if at the end of thirty-five years the council still desired to continue that would be evidence that the experiment had been a success and that they wished to perpetuate the tenure. His own idea was that at the end of the period of hiring the landlord would find the local authority so good a tenant that he would be unwilling to sell and would rather renew the old arrangement. If, however, he wished to sell and the county council wished to purchase they would purchase and it was open to them to do so. But he did not see why they should put a unilateral compulsion upon them.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)
said he was not convinced by the Solicitor - General's argument, although the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think it was very convincing. He said that this proposal was novel, but so was the proposal in the clause itself. If the county council did not purchase or renew the lease, the latter came to an end, and the landlord resumed possession of his land and it seemed to him that the novel position was that taken up on the other side of the House. On the general question he also would make an appeal to the Government. He thought there was great force in what was put forward by those who supported this Amendment. They were told that the fact that this arrangement could go on as long as the local authority cared to continue it increased the possibilities of the landlord in regard to sale. They were also told that the local authority at the end of the first period might purchase if they liked, but surely that was a most extraordinary argument when the Government had taken extraordinary precautions under the Bill to say that the local authority should not purchase at all. He did not think that the Government could put forward the argument that they were increasing the selling power of the landlord or the selling price of the land. In fact they all knew that the land 1398 would be unsaleable because of this matter hanging over it. After the thirty-five years had expired a new condition of things ought to be allowed. The Government said they were bringing in a new procedure, but had they any right to bring in a new procedure which constituted an injustice? The procedure under the Bill was a novel one and was going far beyond anything which the House had done before. It took from the landlord the perpetual management of his own land and the local authority, having deprived the landlord of his right to do as he pleased with his property during the hiring period of thirty-five years, whether it had made a good bargain or not, should at the end of that period give the unfortunate landlord the capital value of his property so that he might do what he liked with his own. He felt very strongly that there was very great justice in the Amendment put forward and he hoped the Government would give it their consideration.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY
thought the Solicitor-General had advanced a most extraordinary argument against the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to look on renewal and non-renewal as against purchase as if both the contracting parties were free. But that was not the case; the circumstances were very different indeed. By this Bill they were binding the landlord to accept the terms of the county council. He had no option of refusing to renew, and yet they were told that if the county council wanted the land in perpetuity, they would buy it. How was that conclusion arrived at? If the county council wanted this land in perpetuity, they got it under the Bill by renewing the lease every thirty-five years with the probability of a reduction of rent at every break of the lease. If the tenants of the county council had depreciated the value of the land, it was the most likely thing in the world that the valuer who valued the land would reduce the rent to be paid by the county council. When they could gain the land in perpetuity by renewals every thirty-five years, they would not purchase the land unless there was something in the Bill compelling them to do so. Another of 1399 the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments was that a landlord would not want to sell the land, because such a rent-charge would probably give him better interest than he otherwise would get. That landlords would not be willing to sell on that ground he could hardly believe, because not only could they get better security and interest from other investments, but at any time that the county council wanted to get rid of the land the landowners would have to find an immense capital sum to pay for the improvements, drainage, and so on. He could not imagine any landlord, if this Amendment was passed, who would not compel the county council to buy the land. As it was, the Government had thrown the risk of failure on the landlord and not on the county council, but if the county council had been justified in acquiring the land, what earthly objection could there be to their purchasing it? If the thing was to be done fairly and owners of land were to be treated as owners of other property would be treated under similar circumstances, he would have thought that any assembly of men, not divided as that House was by Party considerations, would have recognised the reasonableness and justice of the Amendment. By this Bill the Government gave the county councils all the advantages of purchase without then-having to pay for them, and if that was not predatory he did not know the meaning of the word. He had said that the landlord would be willing to sell his land under these circumstances, but would he find a buyer for this annual rent-charge which was said to be such a grand security? He could not imagine the landlord under any circumstances being able to transfer the remnants of his rights of property to anybody in the world. Nobody would be such a fool as to purchase under the circumstances. He supported the Amendment with all the force at his command.
§ MR. HARCOURT
said the noble Lord, no doubt quite unintentionally, had misrepresented the Bill. If he would look at the end of Clause 27 he would find that it disposed of his statement that under the valuation the landlord was likely to have a lower rent owing to the depreciation 1400 of the land by the county council and their tenant. There he would find words specially inserted to obviate-any such result. So long as the land was compulsorily hired the landlord would not suffer in his rent in consequence of depreciation.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY
asked whether, if the tenancy was changed, the new tenant would pay the same rent, although, the land had deteriorated.
§ MR. HARCOURT
said the council would have to pay the rent to the landlord without any deduction owing to deterioration.
said that although they were familiar with the arguments in favour of compelling a landlord to sell his property, the Solicitor-General pretended to be horrified by the suggestion that the public authority should be compelled to buy. If they compelled a landlord to sell his rights of property, the persons to whom those rights were transferred should be compelled to carry out their bargain. The Solicitor-General was defending the rankest and grossest injustice ever suggested, and he hoped to get from a packed jury a verdict in his favour. When in another place they found a leader whom they had been craving to follow speaking in the interests, of the country at large, they lifted up their hands in horror at the way in which he had degenerated. Because the noble Lord had spoken in the interests of justice he had ceased to be a Leader of the Liberal Party. He wondered whether there was any case within the knowledge of any person who had transacted business, either public or private, in which there were two parties to the negotiation, where the option was denied to one while it could be exercised most detrimentally against him by the other? He could not conceive in a case in which hon. Members were trustees for property or settlements or where they had been called in to adjudicate on matters affecting other people, as some of them had, any conditions under which they would say to one side, "No, you are bound to lose, I cannot do anything for you," and to the other, "I cannot deny you any opportunity of 1401 gaining." There was no element of fair play in it. They took the land by compulsion, and when they had proved its value, why should they not at the end of the term give the landlord the price of the article which they had taken from him? It was asserted that the rent-charge was a saleable and valuable commodity; some of them thought that it was unsaleable and valueless, and was very likely to go down in the same way that Consols went down under a Liberal administration, and for the same reason—want of confidence in the support that the country would give to their measure. Although the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor General by his side were
|Acland-Hood. Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Craik, Sir Henry||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Du Cros, Harvey||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Ashley, W. W.||Faber, George Denison (York)||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn. Sir H.||Fell, Arthur||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)||Fletcher, J. S.||Moore, William|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Forster, Henry William||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry. N.)||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Nield, Herbert|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Gordon, J.||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Gretton, John||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Cave, George||Helmsley, Viscount||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Hills, J. W.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Hunt, Rowland||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Viscount Valentia and Lord|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.||Edmund Talbot.|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Bramsdon, T. A.||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)|
|Acland, Fiancis Dyke||Branch, James||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Brigg, John||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Alden, Percy||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Byles, William Pollard||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Dobson, Thomas W.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Chance, Frederick William||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Cheetham, John Frederick||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)||Erskine, David C.|
|Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)||Cleland, J. W.||Essex, R. W.|
|Bcauehamp, E.||Clough, William||Esslemont, George Birnie|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Clynes, J. R.||Evans, Samuel T.|
|Bell, Richard||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Fenwick, Charles|
|Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.||Ferens, T. R.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Findlay, Alexinder|
|Bertram, Julius||Cowan, W. H.||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'rd||Cremer, Sir William Randal||Freeman-Thomas Freeman|
|Black, Arthur W.||Crooks, William||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Crossley, William J.||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Brace, William||Curran, Peter Francis||Gill, A. H.|
§ staunch opponents of confiscatory and predatory legislation, they had no assurance that there might not in the future; be those in power who would be proud to confiscate and proud to be predatory. There was one simple way to deal with this question. The landlords were forced against their will to resign their property, and they asked the Government to pay for what they took, and the Government in so far as they declined to buy were denying them justice.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes, 235. (Division List No. 419.)
|Glover, Thomas||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Gooch, George Peabody||M'Callum, John M.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Grant, Corrie||M'Crae, George||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne|
|Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampt'n||M'Micking, Major G.||Sears, J. E.|
|Hall, Frederick||Maddison, Frederick||Seddon, J.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Mallet, Charles E.||Shackleton, David James|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-s)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire N. E.||Marnham, F. J.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Massie, J.||Snowden, P.|
|Hazel, Br. A. E.||Micklem, Nathaniel||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Molteno, Percy Alport||Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Montgomery, H. G.||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Steadman, W. C.|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.||Morrell, Philip||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Henry, Charles S.||Morse, L. L.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Myer, Horatio||Summerbell, T.|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Napier, T. B.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Nicholson, Charles N.(Donc'st'r||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Nolan, Joseph||Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E.|
|Hudson, Walter||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Idris, T. H. W.||Nuttall, Harry||Ure, Alexander|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Verney, F. W.|
|Jardine, Sir J.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Vivian, Henry|
|Jenkins, J.||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||O'Grady, J.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester).|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea||Parker, James (Halifax)||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southmpt'n|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Wardle, George J.|
|Jowett, F. W.||Phillipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampt'n||Waring, Walter|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Pollard, Dr.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Kelley, George D.||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Radford, G. H.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax).|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Raphael, Herbert H.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Lambert, George||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Lamont, Norman||Rees, J. D.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)||Rendall, Athelstan||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mp'n||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Rickett, J. Compton||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Winfrey, R.|
|Lough, Thomas||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wood, T. MKinnon|
|Lupton, Arnold||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Lynch, H. B.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Mr. Whitcley and Mr. J. A.|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs.||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Pease.|
|Mackarness, Frederic C.||Rose, Charles Day|
|Maclean, Donald||Runciman, Walter|
In page 14, line 17, to leave out from the word 'years' to the end of the subsection."—(Mr. Cave).
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. HARCOURT said he did not really see what the hon. and learned 1404 Member meant by this Amendment. It would only give to the life tenant-power to do by agreement what the local authority enforced upon him by compulsion. It was only a reasonable provision and he thought it ought to be retained.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.1405
In page 15, line 18, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'be authorised by an order under this Act to.'
In page 15, line 19, after the word 'which,' to insert the words 'at the date of the order.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY.
on behalf of the hon. Member for the Whitby Division, moved to insert in line 20, on page 15, the words "home farm." It had been said that this point was covered by the Bill, but he wished to point out that there was a precedent for it in the Scottish Land Bill. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accept the Amendment.
In page 15, line 20, after the word ground to insert the words 'home farm.'"—(Viscount Helmsley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. HARCOURT
said they had a very interesting discussion on this point in Committee upstairs, and hon. Gentlemen representing the Opposition accepted his suggestion that on the whole the words "home farm" were not easy to define. The words of the clause he was assured entirely covered "home farm" and other matters.
* MR. GEORGE FABER
said that in the Scottish Bill it was thought necessary in a like case to insert the words "home farm," but the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this measure seemed to take a different view.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In page 15, line 21, after the word 'which' to insert the words 'at that date.'"—(Mr. Harcourt).
In page 15, line 24, at the end, to add the words 'and, subject to the foregoing provisions,
preference shall be given to land which is not farmed by or in the occupation of any tenant.'"—(Mr. Lane-Fox.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ MR. HARCOURT moved an Amendment on Clause 30 to carry out an arrangement which was come to with hon. Members upstairs. He accepted some words of an Amendment in Committee, but immediately afterwards he realised that they might carry a meaning which was not intended and he explained at once that he must replace them by other words. He begged to move.
In page 15, line 31, to leave out from the word 'and,' to end of subsection, and to insert the words 'for that purpose, where part only of a holding is taken, shall take into consideration the size and character of the existing agricultural buildings not proposed to be taken, which were used in connection with the holding, and the quantity and nature of the land available for occupation therewith.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. CHAPLIN
said he could not agree to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of an arrangement. There was no arrangement so far as those on that side of the House were concerned. The closing words of Subsection (2) of Clause 30 were as follows—And in particular shall avoid taking a part of a holding so that sufficient land would not be left for the economic and profitable use of the existing agricultural buildings and equipment of the holding.Nothing could be fairer than that proposal, but there was a great difference between it and the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman now asked to substitute. No doubt what the right hon. Gentleman proposed was better than nothing at all, but it was not nearly so good as the proposal in the clause. That being so, he must oppose the change.
§ MR. HARCOURT
said it was to avoid the possibility of misconstruction that the Amendment was proposed.
* MR. GEORGE FABER
said he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had 1407 proposed an alteration in the clause as it left the Committee upstairs. In doing so he had shown weakness by aceeding to the demand of extremists out his own side. He and his friends did not think the right hon. Gentleman had done justice to himself or to them in proposing this Amendment on the Report Stage.
|Acland-Hood. Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Du Cros, Harvey||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Faber, George Denison (York)||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fell, Arthur||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fletcher, J. S.||Moore, William|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gordon, J.||Nield, Herbert|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Gretton, John||Parker, Sir Gibert (Gravesend)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Helmsley, Viscount||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hills, J. W.||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Care, George||Hornby, Sir William Henry||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hunt, Rowland||Turnour, Viscount|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H||Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Wore.||Kimber, Sir Henry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Viscount Valentia and Mr.|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Forster.|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Brodie, H. C.||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Alden, Percy||Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Dobson, Thomas W.|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Byles, William Pollard||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Chance, Frederick William||Elibank, Master of|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Cheetham, John Frederick||Erskine, David C.|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Essex, R. W.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.||Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)||Esslemont, George Birnie|
|Beauehamp, E.||Cleland, J. W.||Evans, Samuel T.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Clough, William||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Bell, Richard||Clynes, J. R.||Fenwick, Charles|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Ferens, T. R.|
|Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Ferguson, R. C. Munro|
|Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W||Findlay, Alexander|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Cooper, G. J.||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Bertram, Julius||Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd||Cowan, W. H.||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Cox, Harold||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Black, Arthur W.||Cremer, Sir William Randal||Gibb, James (Harrow)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Crooks, William||Gill, A. H.|
|Brace, William||Crossley, William J.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Curran, Peter Francis||Glover, Thomas|
|Branch, James||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Gooch, George Pea body|
|Brigg, John||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Grant, Corrie|
§ seen his way to stand by the words passed in Committee.
§ And, it being half-past ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 9th August, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 67: Noes, 263. (Division List No. 420.)
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|G urdon, Et. Hn Sir W. Brampton||M'Micking, Major G.||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne|
|Hall, Frederick||Maddison, Frederick||Sears, J. E.|
|Harcourt, Et. Hon. Lewis||Mallet, Charles E.||Seddon, J.|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Shackleton, David James|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Woro'r)||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh||Markham, Arthur Basil||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Marnham, F. J.||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Massie, J.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Micklem, Nathaniel||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Hedges, A, Paget||Molteno, Percy Alport||Snowden, P.|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Montgomery, H. G.||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Morrell, Philip||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Henry, Charles S.||Morse, L. L.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Higham, John Sharp||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Myer, Horatio||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Napier, T. B.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Summerbell, T.|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Nicholls, George||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Nicholson, Charles N. (D'cast'r||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Hudson, Walter||Nolan, Joseph||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Idris, T. H. W.||Nuttall, Harry||Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E.|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Jardine, Sir J.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Jenkins, J.||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Ure, Alexander|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||O'Grady, J.||Verney, F. W.|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N||Vivian, Henry|
|Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Parker, James (Halifax)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Paulton, James Mellor||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Jowett, F. W.||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Pollard, Dr.||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Kelley, George D.||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford. E.)||Wardle, George J.|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Radford, G. H.||Waring, Walter|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r||Rainy, A. Rolland||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Lambert, George||Raphael, Herbert H.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Lamont, Norman||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Wedgwood, Josiah G|
|Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')||Weir, James Galloway|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)||Rees, J. D.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Rendall, Athelstan||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich)||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||Wiles, Thomas|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Rickett, J. Compton||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Longh, Thomas||Ridsdale, E. A.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Lupton, Arnold||Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'rd||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs.||Robinson, S.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Mackarness, Frederic C.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Winfrey, R.|
|Maclean, Donald||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Yoxall, James Henry|
|MaeVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Rose, Charles Day|
|M'Callum, John M.||Runciman, Walter||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Whiteley and Mr J. A. Pease.|
|M'Crae, George||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
§ Words there inserted in the Bill.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.
In page la, line 35, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'be authorised by an order under this Act to.'
In page 15, line 41, after the word 'acquired,' to insert the words 'and to acquire for that purpose stints and other alienable common rights of grazing.'
In page 16, line 1, after the word 'created,' to insert the words 'or acquired.'
In page 16, line 1, to leave out the words 'over land acquired.'
In page 16, lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words 'and any similar rights otherwise acquired by the council.'
In page 17, line 30, after the word 'landlord,' to insert the word" 'and his successors in title.'
In page 19, line 6, after the word 'formation,' to insert the words 'or extension.'
In page 39, line 7, to leave out the words 'assist co-operative societies and credit banks or societies.' and to insert the words 'may, subject to the provisions of this section, assist societies on a co-operative basis.'
In page 19, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words 'furtherance of the provision and successful cultivation,' and to insert the word 'provision or the profitable working.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Cremer, Sir William Randal||Higham, John Sharp|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Crooks, William||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Crossley, William J.||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Alden, Percy||Curran, Peter Francis||Holt, Richard Durning|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||De war, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Hudson, Walter|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Hyde, Clarendon|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Idris, T. H. W.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Dobson, Thomas W.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Jardine, Sir J.|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Jenkins, J.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanlcy)||Johnson, W. (Duneaton)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Elibank, Master of||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Erskine, David C.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Bell, Richard||Essex, R. W.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Esslemont, George Birnie||Jowett, F. W.|
|Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.)||Evans, Samuel T.||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Everett, R. Lacey||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Bertram, Julius||Fenwick, Charles||Kelley, George D.|
|Bethell, SirJ. H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Ferens, T. R.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford).|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Black, Arthur W.||Findlay, Alexander||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lambert, George|
|Brace, William||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Lamont, Norman|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)|
|Branch, James||Fullerton, Hugh||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)|
|Brigg, John||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Brodie, H. C.||Gill, A. H.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Glover, Thomas||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Gooch, George Peabody||Lough, Thomas|
|Byles, William Pollard||Grant, Corrie||Lupton, Arnold|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Chance, Frederick William||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hall, Frederick||Mackarness, Frederic C.|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Maclean, Donald|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Cleland, J. W.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh)||M'Callum, John M.|
|Clough, William||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||M'Crae, George|
|Clynes, J. R.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Haworth, Arthur A.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Collins Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W.||Hedges, A. Paget||Maddison, Frederick|
|Cooper, G. J.||Helme, Norval Watson||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln.)|
|Cox, Harold||Henry, Charles S.||Markham, Arthur Basil|
§ Amendments agreed to.
In page 19, line 10, after the word 'allotments,' to insert the words 'whether in relation to the purchase of requisites, the sale of produce, credit banking or insurance, or otherwise, and may employ any society as their agents for the purpose.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ The House divided:—Aves, 268; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 421.)
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Marnham, F. J.||Rickett, J. Compton||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)|
|Massie, J.||Ridsdale, E. A.||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Mioklem, Nathaniel||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Ure, Alexander|
|Moltetio, Percy Alport||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd||Verney, F. W.|
|Montgomery, H. G.||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Vivian, Henry|
|Morgan, O. Hay (Cornwall)||Robinson, S.||Wadsworth, J.|
|Morrell, Philip||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Morse, L. L.||Roe, Sir Thomas||Walsh, Stephen|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Myer, Horatio||Rose, Charles Day||Walson, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Napier, T. B.||Runciman, Walter||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Newnes, F. (Notts, Basset law)||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Watd, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Nicholls, George||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Wardle, George J.|
|Nicholson, CharlesN. (Doncast'r||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Waring, Walter|
|Nolan, Joseph||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Sears, J. E.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Nuttall, Harry||Seddon, J.||Wedgwood, Josiah O.|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Seely, Colonel||Weir, James Galloway|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Shackleton, David James||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|O'Donnell, O. J. (Walworth)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|O'Grady, J.||Sherwell, Arthur James||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Simon, John Allsebrook||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||Snowden, P.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Pollard, Dr.||Stanger, H. Y.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid).|
|Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, P.)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton).|
|Radford, G. H.||Steadman, W. C.||Winfrey, R.|
|Rainy, A. Rolland||Strachey, Sir Edward||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Raphael, Herbert H.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Summerbell, T.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Rees, J. D.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Rendait, Athelstan||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Craik, Sir Henr||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Ashley, W. W.||Du Cros, Harvey||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Faber, George Denison (York)||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fell, Arthur||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Moore, William|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Fletcher, J. S.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Nield, Herbert|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Gordon, J.||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gretton, John||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Rawlinson, John Frederiek Peel|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hornby, Sir William Henry||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hunt, Rowland||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Kimber, Sir Henry||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore.||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)|
In page 19, line 13, to leave out the words 'purposes aforesaid guarantee,' and to insert the words 'purpose of assisting a society give guarantees.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
In page 19, line 13, after the word 'make to insert the words 'grants or.'
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Elibank, Master of||Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Erskine, David C.||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Essex, R. W.||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Alden, Percy||Esslemont, George Birnie||Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Evans, Samuel T.||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Everett, R. Lacey||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Fenwick, Charles||Lough, Thomas|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Ferens, T. R.||Lupton, Arnold|
|Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Findlay, Alexander||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs|
|Barnard, E. B.||Fuller, John Michael F.||Mackarness, Frederick C.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Fullerton, Hugh||Maclean, Donald|
|Beauchamp, E.||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Gill, A. H.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||M'Callum, John M.|
|Bell, Richard||Glover, Thomas||M'Crae, George|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Gooch, George Peabody||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Grant, Corrie||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Bertram, Julius||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Maddison, Frederick|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford||Gurdon, Rt Hn SirW. Brampton||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hall, Frederick||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Brace, William||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Marnham, F. J.|
|Branch, James||Harmsworth, R. L (Caithn'ss-sh||Massie, J.|
|Brigg, John||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Brodie, H. C.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Haworth, Arthur A.||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Hedges, A. Paget||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Helme, Norval Watson||Morrell, Philip|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Helmsley, Viscount||Morse, L. L.|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Myer, Horatio|
|Chance, Frederick William||Henry, Charles S.||Napier, T. B.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Higham, John Sharp||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hills, J. W.||Nicholls, George|
|Churchill, Rt. Hn. Winston S.||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r|
|Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)||Holland, Sir William Henry||Nolan, Joseph|
|Cleland, J. W.||Holt, Richard Durning||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Clough, William||Horniman, Emslie John||Nuttall, Harry|
|Clynes, J. R.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Hudson, Walter||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|'Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hyde, Clarendon||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.||Idris, T. H. W.||O'Grady, J.|
|Cooper, G. J.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Jardine, Sir J.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Jenkins, J.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Cox, Harold||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Crooks, William||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)|
|Crossley, William J.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pollard, Dr.|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Jowett, F. W.||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Radford, G. H.|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Kekewich, Sir George||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Kelley, George D.||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Laidlaw, Robert||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'|
|Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||Rees, J. D.|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Lambert, George||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Lamont, Norman||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n|
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 273; Noes, 63. (Division List No. 422.)
|Rickett, J. Compton||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Snowden, P.||Wardle, George J.|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Stanger, H. Y.||Waring, Walter|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Steadman, W. C.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Robinson, S.||Strachey, Sir Edward||Weir, James Galloway|
|Robson, Sir William Snowdon.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax).|
|Rogers, F. E. Newman||Summerbell, T.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Rose, Charles Day||Sutherland, J. E.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Rowlands, J.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Runciman, Walter||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Taylor, Theodore C, (Radcliffe)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.).|
|Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)-|
|Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Torrance, Sir A. M.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton).|
|Sears, J. E.||Ure, Alexander||Winfrey, R.|
|Seddon, J.||Verney, F. W.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Seely, Colonel||Vivian, Henry||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Shackleton, David James||Wadsworth, J.|
|Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)||Walker, H De R. (Leicester)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Walsh, Stephen||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Simon, John Allsebrook||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Craik, Sir Henry||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Ashley, W. W.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Du Cros, Harvey||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Balcarres, Lord||Faber, George Denison (York)||Moore, William|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.||Fell, Arthur||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield.|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Nield, Herbert|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G.(Winchester||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Gordon, J.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Grctton, John||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bowles, G. Stewart.||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peek|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hornby, Sir William Henry||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cave, George||Hunt, Rowland||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Kimber, Sir Henry||Viscount Valentia and Mr.|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Forster.|
In page 19, line 13, to leave out the words 'any such,' and to insert the word 'the.'
In page 19, line 14, to leave out the words 'or bank.'
In page 19, line 16, after the word 'such,' to insert the words 'grants or.'
In page 19, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words 'co-operative society or credit bank or and to insert the word' such.'
In page 19, line 36, after the word 'acquired,' to insert the words 'and shall so transfer the land on payment of all sums due from the council in connection therewith, and on proof to the satisfaction of the Board that the council are willing to exercise and
perform their powers and duties in relation thereto.'
In page 20, line 34, after the word 'which,' to insert the words 'exceeds one acre and.'
In page 20, line 37, to leave out from the word 'pounds,' to end of line 40.
In page 22, line 32, to leave out Subsection (5).
In page 23, line 39, after the word 'manner to insert the words and (unless otherwise agreed) to keep the buildings in repair.'
In page 24, line C, after the word 'any,' to insert the word 'minerals.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ Amendments agreed to.1419
In page 24, line 6, after the word 'clay,' to insert the words 'except so far as may be necessary or convenient for the purpose of greeting buildings on the land or otherwise dapting the land for small holdings or allotments.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Dobson, Thomas W.||Kelley, George D.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Alden, Percy||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Lambert, George|
|Ashton, ThomasGair||Elibank, Master of||Lamont, Norman|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Hy.||Erskine, David C.||Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Essex, R. W.||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Esslemont, George Birnie||Lehmann, R. C|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Evans, Samuel T.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Everett, R. Lacey||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Fenwick, Charles||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Barnard, E. B.||Ferens, T. R.||Lough, Thomas|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lupton, Arnold|
|Beauchamp, E.||Findlay, Alexander||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Bell, Richard||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Macdonald, J. R, (Leicester)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Fuller, John Michael F.||Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs|
|Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.)||Fullerton, Hugh||Maclean, Donald|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Bertram, Julius||Gill, A. H.||Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'rd||Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John||M'Callum, John M.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Glover, Thomas||M'Crae, George|
|Black, Arthur W.||Gooch, George Peabody||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Grant, Corrie||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Brace, William||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Maddison, Frederick|
|Branch, James||Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Brigg, John||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Manfield, Harry (Northants)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Hall, Frederick||Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Harmsworth, R. L.(Caithn'ss-sh||Marnham, F. J.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Massie, J.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, C. H.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Hedges, A. Paget||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Chance, Frederick William||Helme, Norval Watson||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morrell, Philip|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Morse, L. L.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Henry, Charles S.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)||Higham, John Sharp||Napier, T. B.|
|Clough, William||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)|
|Clynes, J. R.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Nicholls, George|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Holt, Richard Durning||Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Horniman, Emslie John||Nolan, Joseph|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Cooper, G. J.||Hudson, Walter||Nuttall, Harry|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex. E.Grinst'd||Hyde, Clarendon||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cory, Clifford John||Idris, T. H. W.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||O'Donnell, G J. (Walworth)|
|Cox, Harold||Jardine, Sir J.||O'Grady, J.|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Jenkins, J.||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.|
|Crooks, William||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Crossley, William J.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Divies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Jowett, F. W.||Pollard, Dr.|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Kekewich, Sir George||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
§ Question put, "That the Amenement be made."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 268; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 423).
|Radford, G. H.||Shackleton, David James||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Rainy, A. Rolland||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent|
|Raphael, Herbert, H.||Sherwell, Arthur James||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton|
|Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wardle, George J.|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')||Simon, John Allsebrook||Waring, Walter|
|Rees, J. D.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th||Snowden, P.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Richards, T. F. (Wolverlrmpt'n)||Stanger., H. Y.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Rickett, J. Compton||Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Steadman, W. C.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Roberts, O. H. (Norwich)||Strachey, Sir Edward||Wiles, Thomas|
|Robertson, SirG. Scott (Bradf'rd||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Robinson, S.||Summerbell, T.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Sutherland, J. E.||Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.)|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Rogers, F. E. Newman||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Rose, Charles Day||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Rowlands, J.||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.||Winfrey, R.|
|Runciman, Walter||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Ure, Alexander||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)||Verney, F. W.|
|Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Vivian, Henry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne||Wadsworth, J.||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Sears, J. E.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)||Pease.|
|Seddon, J.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Seely, Colonel||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Acland-Hood. Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Du Cros, Harvey||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Faber, George Denison (York)||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fell, Arthur||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Moore, William|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fletcher, J. S.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Nield, Herbert|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gordon, J.||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. Rt Winchester||Gretton, John||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Barrio, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Helmsloy, Viscount||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hills, J. W.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hornby, Sir William Henry||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hunt, Rowland||Younger, George|
|Cave, George||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnH.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Kimber, Sir Henry||Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone. E.)||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
In page 24, line 19, after the word 'rent,' to insert the words 'to be paid for the land compulsorily hired.'
In page 24, line 26, at end, to insert the words '(4) Any compensation awarded to a tenant in respect of any depreciation of the value to him of the residue of his holding caused by the withdrawal from the holding of the land compulsorily hired shall, as far as possible, be provided for by taking such compensation into account in fixing the rent to be paid for the residue of the holding during the remainder of the term for which it is held by the tenant.'
In page 25, line 13, at the end, to insert the words 'Subsection 2 of Section 11, from the words Provided that to the end of the subsection.'
In page 25, line 31, after the word 'five,' to insert in Section 11 the words 'and then to the person or person whose lands immediately adjoin the holding.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ Bill to be read the third time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 318.]