§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,), Lancashire Rossendalein moving that the Lords' Amendments to the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill be considered forthwith, said that there were a larger number of Amendments for consideration than they might have reasonably expected to receive from their Lordships. They fell, roughly, into three classes: First of all, those which were drafting or explanatory, or which had been accepted by the Government in the other place, and in respect of all of which, of course, he should move that the House do agree. The second class were either nonsensical or mischievous, sometimes both, and sometimes it was difficult to tell which, and that class, of course, they would have to scrutinise carefully. They might accept those which were mischievous in intention but nonsensical in effect, so long as they were quite sure that they were nonsensical. But they would have to eliminate those with were mischievous in effect as well as intention. Then there was a third, and he was happy to say a smaller class, the Amendments which appeared to be pure wrecking Amendments in intention, and destructive in effect. These Amend- 208 ments he would ask the House to reject wholly. The Government had introduced, adhered to, and carried through a Bill which was very moderate in method, though he believed very effective in machinery. In nicely balanced machinery like this, any rough or inconsiderate handling might throw all the gear out of order. He had tried, during the progress of the Bill through Committee, and on the Report Stage in the House, and even in another place, to meet all reasonable objections, and even to meet what seemed to him to be somewhat unreasonable fears, from whatever quarter they came; but it was impossible, at this stage, to shift the whole design of the Bill from the lines on which it had been laid down. They had been bidden by what might be called the landlord party in the other House to regard them as their allies in this matter. He saw on the Amendments before him no trace of an alliance. If these Amendments were the operation of an enemy he would call them fair fighting, but if they were the manœuvres of allies, he would be inclined to say that they seemed to him like treachery. In any event, the Government, having produced a measure which they believed to be just to all, and which in their view was the minimum requisite to meet the necessities of the case, could not associate themselves with or be responsible for a Bill which fell short of what they regarded as those necessities. Nor did they intend to associate themselves with a Bill which would be both unworthy and unworkable. He, personally, would sooner lose the Bill than offer what he would know to be a sham to those for whom it was intended. Therefore, the House would understand that the Amendments with which he would ask them to disagree were those which in his opinion were fatal to the Bill. He should be prepared to deal with each of the Amendments in detail, and he hoped they might escape discussion on those with which he was prepared to agree. Ten of the Lords Amendments he would ask the House to amend; eighteen he would ask the House to agree with: and thirty-three he proposed to ask the House to disagree with.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments to the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill be considered forthwith."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
209§ MR. CHAPLIN (Surrey, Wimbledon)said he had hoard with much regret some of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. Hitherto they had endeavoured, on that side of the House at all events, to do their utmost to secure that the Bills hould be conducted without recrimination and without unnecessary differences with the other side, and, at all events, should in the spirit and with the intention of conciliation, and with the desire of arriving at a satisfactory result. He was quite unable to perceive in reference to what had occurred in another place that there was the slightest justification of any sort or kind for many of the epithets which the right hon. Gentleman had hurled at the heads of the other House. The right hon. Gentleman, if he had desired to secure that which he declared was the intention of many of the Amendments, namely, to wreck it and to bring about its failure, could not have adopted a better course to ensure that effect. Never did he recollect in the House of Commons a speech more unfortunate for the occasion, or more calculated to throw difficulties in the way of the success of the measure, which, he frankly admitted, the right hon. gentleman had conducted with great skill and in a business spirit—a spirit which he might have shown towards another place; but, he repeated, if the right hon. Gentleman had desired to bring about the result he pretended to apprehend, he could not have adopted a better course. He did not desire to dwell on this point, because he thought the sooner they proceeded to the discussion of the Amendments the bettor it would be for all parties concerned. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that there were some drafting Amendments, and Amendments which had been agreed upon in the other. House, some of which were nonsensical or mischievous, and some of which were purely destructive and intended to wreck this measure altogether. He thought he knew something of the desires which animated those in another place, and anything more unfair than the inference of the right hon. Gentleman, or anything further from their intention, he could not I possibly imagine. It was conceivable that they might be mistaken, but a great many noble Lords knew as much about this subject as the right hon. Gentleman 210 himself. He was quite certain that not a single Amendment had been moved except with the clear intention of making the Bill a workable and effective measure. There was not a shadow of justification for the very harsh and ill-timed sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. MASTERMAN (West Ham, N.)said that as reformers he and his friends were grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the announcement he had just made. Although they had been in opposition to him during most of the time in Committee, and although they were unable to get what they thought were improvements in the Bill, still, at the end of the Committee stage, there was something very like common agreement on both sides that the Bill might go forward in the form in which it was finally presented to the House. That common agreement had been absolutely broken up by the House of Lords by a series of Amendments, which, if they were not meant to be wrecking Amendments, he could not conceive the motive for moving. They all acknowledged that hon. Gentlemen opposite, in Committee, had exhibited every intention of trying to make the Bill a satisfactory one, and they had moved as many Amendments evidently designed in the interest of the small holder and the public good as for the interest of any particular class. The Lords Amendments, however, were only of one kind, and by no stretching of interpretation could any of them be said to be designed in the interests of the small holder. Some of those Amendments were not even suggested by the Opposition in Committee, and others were withdrawn after discussion as being unsuitable for the Bill. Not one of these Amendments protected the small holders; they were all designed to protect one particular class. They were a barricade against any suggestion that on any consideration the small holders or the local authority should be allowed a chance of getting the land they required except under considerable difficulties, and by paying considerably more than the market price. He appealed to the Leader of the Opposition whether he did not agree that these Amendments as they stood would make the Bill useless and unworkable. They would render it improbable that any small holdings would be established at all, except under such conditions 211 that they would be in a state of bankruptcy in a few years. It was a desolating spectacle to see this kind of treatment of what was regarded as an unopposed Bill. One scarcely knew what would have happened if it had not been unopposed. The Bill as amended would not be an improvement on the Act of 1902, which had been practically inoperative. Speaking entirely for himself, but as one who had some acquaintance with the feeling which prevailed on the Ministerial Benches, he could assure the Leader of the Opposition that they would rather this Bill were dropped than that it should be passed in the form in which it had been sent back to them.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Amendment which permitted purchase was one of the most important Amendments made in the Bill, and undoubtedly it was conceived solely in the interests of small occupiers. He was not going to criticise the action of the representatives of the Government in another place, but he did not think they had always been fertile in reasoning. He did not know whether the hon. Member admired the defence of the Bill by the representatives of the Government in the other House. If he did not some excuse must be admitted for the majority of the other House not being persuaded by the seductive eloquence of the Minister in charge of the Bill. The most astonishing part of the hon. Member's speech was that in which he suggested that to touch the important provisions of the Bill as brought in by the Government was to be a declared enemy of the small holder.
§ MR. MASTERMANI did not say that.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member had told the House that these were Amendments which it was impossible for the Government to consider. That was precisely the manner in which the efforts of the hon. Member to improve the Bill in Committee were described by the Government. Now that somebody else was altering the original terms of the Bill he was entirely converted to believe in the excellence of the measure and he was prepared to support the Government in any course they might take in dealing with another place. The hon. Member's speech smacked more of 212 the political partisan than of the social reformer. He still regarded the hon. Member, first has a social reformer, and, secondly, as a political partisan. He hoped the corrupting influence of the House would not entirely eat away his primary instincts, and that at the close of this Parliament he would not be found a mere party hack abandoning all those social ideas of which he had been a persuasive exponent. He (Mr. Balfour) was confident that the policy of the Government in dealing with the Lords Amendments would not be conceived in the spirit which had animated the two speeches delivered on the other side of the House. He was as certain as the right hon. Gentleman that, however they might differ in regard to details, there was a common wish among all sections and in both Houses to see a really serious attempt made to facilitate the construction or reconstruction of small holdings in the country.
§ * MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)said the speeches delivered from the other side of the House were not directed to the question of small holdings, but to another topic—that known as "filling up the cup." He was rather surprised at the speech made by the hon. Member for North West Ham, in which he said that none of the Lords Amendments was pushed to a division. Surely he did not say that of the purchase proposals?
§ MR. MASTERMANI said that there were quite a number of Amendments made by the Lords which had not been even suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ * MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that the Lords Amendment which gave the labourers the option of purchase would be recognised by the labouring population throughout the country with gratitude. He was quite aware that purchase was opposed to the idea of his hon. friend opposite, but that was quite another matter. The question of advancing the ratepayers' money to enable private companies to carry on their trade and make a profit out of the labourers had not been discussed at all in this House. Upon this point the Lords Amendments were good as far as they went, and would be much appreciated by 213 traders and ordinary shopkeepers who had to pay rates, and who were going to see the rates, to which they contributed so largely, used to support private companies who were to make a profit and at the same time compete with the ratepayers themselves. Then the Lords had tried to put right the question as to county councils being coerced against their wish, and had followed the principles of representative government, which the House of Commons had abandoned. After years and years of effort local government was secured to this country, but now a Liberal Government abandoned local government and proposed to establish a local autocracy to override the will of the elected representatives of the people. He hoped those outside this House would recognise that the two violent speeches which had been delivered had nothing to do with small holdings, but were intended to fill up the cup in order that an agitation might be carried on founded upon the erroneous belief that the Lords Amendments tended to destroy the Bill.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)said the hon. Member for North West Ham had stated that there had been no substantial Amendments introduced by the Lords except such as were in the interests of the landowning classes. The first substantial Amendment passed by their Lordships was to leave out Subsection 2 of Clause 5, and if the hon. Member had followed the reasons why that Amendment was moved he would have found that it was proposed in order to give this House an opportunity of considering again one of the propositions which the hon. Member himself had urged. It was to enable this House to consider whether the loss should be borne by the county council or by the central authority that the Amendment was proposed. The hon. Member who put down the Amendment in this House had not an opportunity of pressing the Amendment owing to the operation of the guillotine. He had heard with regret, though not with surprise, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It was a style of speech which was becoming common form with the Government, who seemed to think that the proper way of dealing with the House of Lords was by objurgation. Let them come forward and present definite facts to this House, and if their proposals were rejected by the 214 other House let the Government present them to the country. The action of the Government in trying to carry out a revolution in the constitution by objurgation, and by describing the House of Lords as ready for the scrap heap or the steam roller, or imagery of that description, was not consistent with their dignity or their sincerity. He trusted that they would hear no more of it.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendments considered.
§ Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 4, line 4, agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment in page 4, line 7, to leave out Subsection (2),
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURT,in moving that the House disagree with this Amendment, said he understood that it was made by the Lords on the motion of Viscount St. Aldwyn in order to enable this House to discuss the question of finance and the charges on county councils. He supposed that this was not technically a breach of the privileges of this House, but in passing he desired to protest against the action taken by the other House which was in effect a breach of the privileges of this House, because it was compelling them to rediscuss the matter of finance which had been settled here, and which the other House admitted they had no right to discuss themselves. He begged to move.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid he objected altogether to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that this was in effect a breach of privilege by the House of Lords. He had consulted the highest authorities on that subject, and the right hon. Gentleman might take it from him that there was no breach of privilege. The reason why the other House raised this question was a perfectly good one. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that no opportunity had ever been given to this House, as a whole, to 215 discuss this most important clause. It was perfectly true that it was reached on one occasion when the right hon. Gentleman informed them for the first time that he was prepared to send to the county councils, and ultimately to lay upon the table, a Treasury Minute under which, when the county councils undertook to carry out a scheme, and their scheme resulted in a loss, the Treasury would be prepared to pay a certain proportion of the loss. When they were endeavouring to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman what would happen in case of default when the work was carried out by the Commissioners, the proceedings were interrupted by the guillotine. How could the right hon. Gentleman express surprise or condemnation at what the Lords had done? He would have thought that Members on the Ministerial side would have been extremely grateful to the other House for giving this House the opportunity of which they had been deprived when the Bill was under discussion on the Report stage. The Commissioners, acting in default of the county council, were to have power to require the county councils to refund to them out of the rates any loss that might be incurred, no matter how inefficient the work might have been, or how foolish the Commissioners might have been in their estimate. That power remained in the Bill. This was most important, because it had been admitted in both Houses of Parliament by the representatives of the Government that they did not mean, as a matter of fact, to coerce the county councils, and put into force the powers they had under the Bill. But nothing definite had yet been stated by the Government on that point, and that was the reason why in the House of Lords this Amendment had been moved, and why he would now move another Amendment with the view of eliciting a clear expression from the Government as to what county councils were really to expect. He wanted to know what course the Government were going to take. County Councils had an absolute right to know, and if it had not been for the action of the other House there would have been no opportunity for eliciting the least information upon the point. He hoped the Government would now state what they really meant to do. He moved the following addition to Clause 5:—" But this 216 proviso shall not apply in the case of any scheme which the county council have declined to carry out on the ground that the same may result in a loss." What he desired to know was this—when the Government, in pursuance of the policy which seemed to be so dear to them, determined to over-ride a county council, were the council then to be mulcted in their rates by the Government, or were they not, when a scheme in opposition to their wishes had been carried out by the Commissioners and resulted in a serious loss? This was one of the most important of all the points in the Bill, and in regard to which—and it sounded like a satire on the proceedings o£ the House of Commons—this was the first opportunity they had had of raising a discussion.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid he wished to repeat that he had always hoped, and still hoped, that the cases in which the Board would over-ride a county council would be rare, and further that where the Board did over-ride a county council, and the result showed that they were wrong, and the council right, they could not and would not attempt to obtain from the council the losses which might have been incurred. But there were other expenses which might be entailed upon the Board by the default of the county council other than the actual loss in working. The mere absence of action, the loss of assistance of the officers and staff of the council, would entail costs which ought not to be paid by the central authority, and which might fairly be recovered from the council. He thought they ought to leave the Board and the Treasury to judge the circumstances of each case as it arose, and there would be no fear of any injustice being inflicted either on the county council or other bodies. He must decline to accept the Amendment of the right hon Gentleman, and he moved to disagree with the Amendment by the Lords.
§ Lords Amendment disagreed to.
§
Consequential Amendment proposed to the Bill—
At the end of the words so restored to the Bill to insert the words 'But this proviso shall not apply in the case of any scheme which the county council have declined to carry out on the ground that the same may result in a. loss." (Mr. Chaplin.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)said that in Committee an Amendment was carried, giving power to the Board of Agriculture to pay by Treasury Minute any loss to the extent of one half which had been incurred in the case of a voluntary scheme. If a scheme had been forced upon the county council, the whole loss incurred should a fortiori fall on the Treasury. If the loss was caused by what was called the default of the county council in refusing to carry out a scheme, he did not see why that should not be dealt with either in the Bill or in the Treasury Minute proposed to be issued. He was confident that they all desired no more than what was fair in this ease, and he pressed the House to give serious consideration to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)said that the Lords Amendment had been inserted for the purpose of giving an opportunity to re-discuss the question in this House. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would re-consider his decision. The Government had told them that their intentions were excellent, but they should put in the Bill what their intentions really were. It was quite conceivable that another Chancellor of the Exchequer and another President of the Board of Agriculture might arise, who would say that they did not agree with the promises of the right hon. Gentleman, and that they strongly objected to any such payment from the Treasury for losses incurred. The proposal embodied in the Amendment was in the interest of the small holder, and he held that the Government had no excuse for not patting in the Bill a provision in accordance with their professed intentions unless indeed they did not intend to carry them out.
§ * MR. WEDGWOOD (Newcastle-under-Lyme)said that this Amendment as it had developed under the hands of the hon. Member for Wimbledon bore out the statement of his hon. friend the Member for North West Ham that every one of the Amendments moved in the other place were in the interests of the landlord party. The effect of the Amend- 218 ment was that, in cases where a county council had been overridden by the central authority, the whole charge of the experiment would be transferred from the rates to the Imperial Exchequer. The obvious result would be that every county council would see that they were overruled; and as soon as County Councils understood their business the whole charge of carrying out these experiments would be transferred from the rates to the Exchequer. It would be only another example of the principle already he regretted to say enshrined in this Bill of plundering the towns for the benefit of the country landlords. The Amendment was suitable as coming from the Upper House, and it would be as suitably rejected by the House of Commons.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the speech of the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme showed very clearly the views he had formed of the Bill. It was in fundamental contrast and in contradiction with the view of those who had brought forward the Bill. The hon. Member assumed that the schemes were to be a loss, but the whole policy of the Government was based on the assumption that no scheme should be undertaken which would be a loss. That view had been stated over and over again by the Minister in charge of the Bill, and if a scheme were started which resulted in a loss it would be in diametrical contradiction with the views expressed by the Government, and would show that the scheme was wrong ab initio. Who then ought to bear the loss of error and the charge resulting from it? If the Commissioners made the mistake, ought they to bear the cost of their error? The House had to choose between the two different views of the way in which the Bill was to be worked out, first, whether or not the small holdings were to be made to pay, and next as a great social reform. If the view were taken that these schemes ought never to be undertaken unless they were self-supporting, if they entailed a loss and were thus condemned as schemes, the people who made the error were those who should bear the cost of it. The Government alternative, however, was that there should never be a loss, and at the same time they proposed that the Board of Agriculture should be able to compel the county council 219 to adopt the scheme. The Board of Agriculture was an excellent body, but it was fallible; and it was plainly indulging in a kind of agrarian speculation which had not always succeeded in the past, and a certain percentage of errors were quite certain to take place. Equity suggested that the Board of Agriculture should bear the loss, and unless they did something of the kind the plan would not work at all. How was it possible to compel the county councils to undergo the charge for schemes which they did not wish to undertake? The Government plan was ingenious. The Government said, "If you fall in with our views we will pay half the loss. If you do not, we will make you bear the whole loss." On these terms some county councils might decide to undertake voluntarily schemes which they knew would result in a loss; but there were others who would naturally say that the Board of Agriculture was pressing upon them what they knew was an impossible scheme and one which most result in a loss, and they would, prefer to fight the Government and take the risk of incurring the whole loss rather than have peace with the certainty of their having to pay half the loss. This was monstrously unjust on the county councils. But what about the small holders? Was it not a pity from their point of view that there should be all this friction between the Board of Agriculture and the county councils?: Experience showed that, while the Government were right to bring the county councils into consultation and cooperation, it was absurd to expect that the Bill would succeed if the county councils were required to pay half the loss on schemes that they accepted voluntarily, and the whole loss on schemes that they resisted. The county councils would hesitate to embark on schemes which were on the margin of success. There were enormous urban areas on which the county rate fell, and the ratepayers in these areas would not consent to embark on schemes of which the success was doubtful. If such schemes were to be tried, the Treasury ought to stand behind the county councils and promise to see them through. He was not averse from making experiments of this kind, or from taking a certain risk. But then the expense ought to be borne by the general community. These reasons were conclusive in favour of the Amendment, and he could not under- 220 stand how anyone who desired to multiply the number of small holders could question the propriety of the Amendment. It should be supported by all who desired the Bill to be a real success and not a mere piece of political window-dressing. Anyone who desired to see the Bill work should see that the general taxpayer bore some of the cost which under this Bill had been so unjustly put on the local authorities of the particular districts.
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,), South Shieldssaid that the principle which the right hon. Gentleman now laid down was not the principle that inspired his Defaulting Authorities Act. He did not say then let society at large pay, he made the local authority pay in what he conceived to be the general interest. That was a principle with regard to which he had not now the right to complain when it was laid down in this clause. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion was that the county councils were to be concerned in the administration of this Act, but not in the costs of working. That was a novel principle. According to the Amendment the county councils were always to be relieved of the cost when they were in default. If a county council accepted the responsibility and administered the Act as it was it was to bear a certain proportion of the loss, if any; but where a county council said," We decline to carry out the Act," and when they converted themselves into the opposition and worked against the Board of Agriculture, they were to be freed from the whole of the cost. That Amendment carried them a very long way. The Government's position was that normally where the county council took up this burden loyally it was to be paid half the loss, if a loss were incurred. But where they refused the Exchequer were to have power to pay all or none of the loss. If the county council were unwilling for good reasons to undertake a scheme, believing that it would result in a loss, if the duty were then undertaken by the Board of Agriculture, and the county council helped by lending its administrative machinery, then the Board would be disposed to say, "You gave us fair warning, and you gave us your help, and we will pay the whole of the cost having regard to the assistance you have 221 rendered." But if the county council made it clear that they did not intend to help in making the experiment a success, then the discretion of the Treasury would he very differently exercised, and the county council would not be relieved of the cost which their hostile action had involved. The Amendment was one which he hoped, on reflection, no sensible man would support.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)said the Solicitor-General had remarked that this was a novel doctrine to which no sensible man should subscribe, but he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was aware that the County Councils Association had represented to him that this was the point of the Bill to which they offered the strongest opposition, because by this method the Government were overriding all the traditions and principles of local self-government to which we were accustomed in this country. He was not going to be led away into a discussion of educational matters, which the hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly well were entirely different from those they were now discussing. In this instance the county councils, in refusing to carry out the Act, simply differed from the Government officials as to the possibility or the likelihood of the success of small holdings in the district. The right hon. Gentleman had again and again told them that as a matter of fact no charge would ever be thrown on the county council where the fault was not due to it but to the central authority. Very naturally they replied that if that was the case, why not put it in the Bill? One reason which had been given for not doing that was that there were certain initial expenses which would be thrown on the Board of Agriculture by the refusal of the county council to co-operate. He had himself moved an Amendment in Grand Committee expressly providing for that, and he had suggested that the initial and incidental expenses should be charged to the county council, but that the loss caused by the actual mistakes of the Board of Agriculture should in no case be thrown on the local authority but on the persons who had made the mistake. The right hon. Gentleman had refused the Amendment. Many people had grave doubts whether many small 222 holdings would be created under the Bill, but no doubt hundreds of inspectors and other officials would be appointed, and it seemed to be the chief object of Liberal legislation to provide a large number of persons with engagements and salaries.
§ * MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)said there was an extraordinary divergence between the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-General, whose speech gave them more reason for pressing this Amendment. Of course, they would have been perfectly satisfied as to the right hon. Gentleman's intention that the expenses caused by the failure of the Commissioners should not be thrown on the county councils, though they doubted whether he could bind not only his own successors but successors of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Solicitor-General, however, had put an entirely different complexion on the matter, for he had said that the Treasury if they thought that the county council had acted unreasonably would refuse to give anything at all, and in any case must have an absolute discretion in the matter. That clashed entirely with the version given by the right hon. Gentleman. He took it, however, that they must accept the right hon. Gentleman's as the official, version, but the remarks of the Solicitor-General showed how it might be misunderstood even by one of the Minister's colleagues. How could they expect county councillors, who had not even heard the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, to understand it better? His hon. friends around him, under the circumstances, would certainly be justified in taking a division. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, in a very interesting speech, had remarked that this was one of the landlords' Amendments to which the hon. Member for North West Ham had strongly objected. The hon. Member for North West Ham had moved an Amendment in Grand Committee, to a similar effect, and had taken a division upon it.
§ MR. MASTERMAN (West Ham, N.)said the hon. Member would agree with him that the whole situation was completely modified by the final carrying of the Amendments of the hon. Member for Kingston.
§ MR. COURTHOPEsaid that in any case he hoped the hon. Member for West Ham would act up to his opinions and I support them in the division.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 44; Noes, 145. (Division List No. 459.)
225| AYES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Balcarres, Lord | Faber, George Denison (York) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Fell, Arthur | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fletcher, J. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Forster, Henry William | Nield, Herbert |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Bull, Sir William James | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Gretton, John | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Cave, George | Guinness, Walter Edward | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hay, Hon. Claude George | |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham | Hills, J. W. | TELLER'S FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Hunt, Rowland | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | |
| NOES. | ||
| Alden, Percy | Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Morley, Rt. Hon. John |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morrell, Philip |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Beauchamp, E. | Hazleton, Richard | Murray, James |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Hedges, A. Paget | Napier, T. B. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nicholls, George |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hobart, Sir Robert | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Bowerman, C W. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H | Nuttall, Harry |
| Branch, James | Horniman, Emslie John | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Hudson, Walter | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Idris, T. H. W. | O'Malley, William |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Illingworth, Percy H. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Jackson, R S. | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Kekewich, Sir George | Radford, G. H. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Lambert, George | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' |
| Cleland, J. W. | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Rees, J. D. |
| Clough, William | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n |
| Clynes, J. R. | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Lewis, John Herbert | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Cox, Harold | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Rowlands, J. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lough, Thomas | Runciman, Walter |
| Cremer, Sir William Randal | Lupton, Arnold | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Elibank, Master of | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Essex, R. W. | Mackarness, Frederic C | Seely, Colonel |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Maclean, Donald | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Ferens, T. R. | Macpherson, J. T. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Ffrench, Peter | Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | M'Callum, John M. | Snowden, P. |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | M'Crae, George | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Stewart, H alley (Greenock) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Grant, Corrie | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset. E. |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Marnham, F. J. | Toulmin, George |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Ure, Alexander |
| Gulland, John W. | Massie, J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Walters, John Tudor | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley, and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton | Wills, Arthur Walters | |
| Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) | |
| Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | |
| White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) | Winfrey, R. |
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid in the other House an Amendment was carried against the Government that some notification should be made by the Board to Parliament when they were acting in default of the county council. He thought that was not an undesirable thing, and he proposed to add the following subsection to Clause 5:—"Any order made by the Board directing the Commissioners to carry a scheme into effect shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, as soon as may be after it is made."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 7, line 32, after the word 'to' to insert the words 'purchase or,'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURT moved to disagree with this Amendment, the effect of which would have been to permit persons to "purchase" as well as to "lease'" land for small holdings from a county council. He said the Bill enabled land to be sold to small holders, if it had been acquired by agreement. He had always thought that most of the land acquired under this Bill would be acquired by agreement. If that was so, Members like the right hon. Member for Bordesley, who desired that small landholders should be set up on land which they had bought, would be satisfied. But he was more and more impressed, the more he looked into it, that if they put this alternative power into the Bill they would be putting a power of obstruction into the hands of a county council which did not wish to act. That, he believed, would be a very serious engine in the hands of those who did not wish the Pill to work, and on that ground, if on no other, he must decline to accept the Amendment. He would not restate his reasons against a policy of purchase, but he would like this declaration of a general principle by the Conservative Party and the House of Lords that it was perfectly reasonable and satisfactory wherever they might think necessary to purchase land compulsorily and transfer it from one person to another to be noted. He did not 226 think it was necessary or requisite for this Bill to provide for purchase, in fact he thought it would be a disadvantage. He had noted the readiness of the Party opposite both in this House and in another place to accept this principle, and it would be useful to remember that when they desired to apply the principle to other objects and under other circumstances.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid he did not believe they were wise in relying entirely on the principle of hiring for the purpose of establishing small holdings. He thought it most extraordinary that no member of the Government had ever thought it worth his while to allude to the evidence as to the results of hiring presented to Parliament by the President of the Board of Agriculture. There it was stated that in regard to allotments, which were now allowed to extend to four acres, and which were nothing but small holdings, where they had been hired people had become dissatisfied with them, and in more than half the counties of England they had been given up in all directions. It was scarcely credible that, although the attention of the Government had been repeatedly called to such evidence, not a single Minister had attempted to answer it, and they had never attempted to take up the challenge. The right hon. Gentleman himself was hostile to the principle of ownership, and he had said that this Amendment in some counties would be used as an engine of obstruction, and to prevent the Bill being put into operation. But did not the right hon. Gentleman see that under his own Bill, supposing that there was no demand for ownership, that would not in the least relieve the county council from their duty of supplying holdings on tenancy, if they were desired? There was already an Act in existence which required the county councils to do this, and provide small holdings for the people who desired to lease them. Consequently the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment would provide a weapon 227 for obstruction to the county council fell absolutely to the ground. He agreed that the Amendment might not have any effect, because the power given to the county councils would be purely permissive. He read the other day in a Radical journal a vehement attack upon the House of Lords because they had insisted upon the option of purchase which had been rejected by such a large majority in this House. That was absolutely untrue and was altogether a fallacy. No option of purchase had been restored or put into the Bill which did not exist before. Power to purchase was given to the county councils in Clause 26. The county councils, having already got the power to purchase, it was proposed by this Bill to deprive them, when they had got the land, of all power of reselling it. He was speaking of land purchased compulsorily. If the Government were not hostile to the creation of small ownerships, why did they object to this Amendment On the Third Reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman strongly repudiated any hostility to the creation of small ownerships on the part of the Government, and said they had no objection to anything of the kind, although they had not thought it necessary in this Bill to do anything to increase them. In that case he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman refused to support this Amendment, because it was purely permissive in character, and imposed no obligation whatever upon the county councils to resell land instead of letting it on lease. All the Lords Amendment did was to give the county councils power to sell the land if for any purpose or under any conditions they found that course desirable. What objection could there be to a proposal of that kind? The right hon. Gentleman stated the other night that the Bill might possibly prove unsuccessful, and that if that turned out to be the case the Government would have to take other steps to make it a success. He was strongly convinced that the hiring system was a wrong one and was foredoomed to failure. He wanted to enable the Government to get out of the mess they were getting into. If hiring failed, this Amendment would enable them to try purchase. If hiring was not a failure, there would be no necessity to resort to purchase. He had endeavoured to put before the House reasons why the Amend- 228 ment was absolutely innocuous, although, under certain possible conditions, it might be of the greatest use. He hoped the House would not disagree with the Amendment.
§ Mr. WINFREY (Norfolk, S. W.)said the right hon. Gentleman had lost sight of the fact that the Small Holdings Act of 1892 gave the county councils power to let land. But they could not find small holders willing to purchase land, and they would not deal with them on any other terms. They desired to give the county council power to sell. They had power after all, and this Amendment would only affect one acre in 100. It could not affect land which the county council had bought for leasing purposes, or land which the county councils had bought in the open market. He ventured to say that nine-tenths of the land that they bought would be bought in the open market, and it could be resold to small holders if the county councils so wished it. The Amendment was absolutely limited to land purchase by compulsion
§ MR. CHAPLINI have just said so.
§ MR. WINFREYsaid he wished to emphasise that argument. Under the circumstances he thought he was justified in saying that when land was purchased by compulsion the county council should not resell it. He was very glad that the right hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill had determined to adhere to the clause as it stood.
§ * MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that if he wanted further confirmation of his belief that ownership was the true settlement of this question he would find it, not only in the arguments which had been used that day, but in the silence of hon. Members on the other side of the House. This Amendment was defeated in the Grand Committee, and on the Report stage it was moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Chippenham Division. He believed it was supported by a large number on the Ministerial side of the House. He would repeat the appeal which the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division then made that in the division lobby the followers of the Government should be left free to follow their own convictions. He believed if that were done the Amandment would 229 be carried by a large majority. It was only an option that was asked for; it was not proposed to compel the county council to sell. He expected to be in the position of having to acknowledge that the House of Lords in this case was on the side of the peasantry of the country, and that the Government—he would not say hon. Members opposite, because that would be unfair—were against them. If it were explained to parish audiences what the House of Lords had tried to do, and what the Government were refusing to do, he thought it would be agreed that the Government were emptying the cup against the House of Lords rather than filling it up. What had operated against the Act of 1892 was the poverty of the people who wished to become small holders. When the Government denounced that Act, they should remember that they had refused to remove the bar of poverty. Could there be a more poverty-stricken argument than the one used that it was proposed to dispossess one owner in order to make another. If the county council dispossessed one owner, they would put thirty-two in his place in the shape of peasant proprietors. His opinions on that question were well known, and he would not detain the House by repeating what he had stated many times. Hon. Members opposite in refusing to support the Amendment were worshipping in a temple in which they were not believers. If they were to speak their mind that would be apparent. Reference had been made to Lord Onslow's Committee, and he would remind the House that all the witnesses, with one exception, who were examined before the Committee were in favour of what he was contending for. Those who were best qualified to give an opinion on the question were all in favour of ownership, if the financial difficulty were removed. Under this Bill the small holders would pay for the land which they occupied. They had been told that the refusal to sell was the first step towards the nationalisation of the land. If the country wanted nationalisation of the land let the country pay for it, and not adopt the mean expedient of making the labourers pay for it and then take the land from them. The other day the hon. Member for the Chippenham division mentioned what took place at the International Housing Conference, which was attended by delegates from Belgium, 230 Germany and other countries. These delegates attributed all the advantages of their countries over ours in rural matters to the fact that the men owned the land. The report of the meeting stated that the land Socialist speaker used some violent language in opposition and that a scene followed. If, as the hon. Member opposite had said, this Amendment would only affect one acre in 100 that was a reason why the Amendment should be accepted. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk in his own district had done good work in connection with small holdings, but from personal inquiry he found that there were not 10 per cent. of the tenants who would not give anything to be owners, and yet the hon. Member was a party to refusing this Amendment which simply proposed to give them the chance of becoming owners. This Government could give £5,000,000 for doubtful purposes in the Transvaal, but when the labourers of England wanted not so large a sum, but £100,000 or £200,000 to put them on the land, the door was banged in their faces. They would have to come to ownership as the ultimate solution of this question. He believed that if the labourers of this country were polled, it would be found that they were almost unanimously in favour of ownership. He hoped the Government would not resist this reasonable Amendment. The occupiers would not be obliged to become owners. The Amendment simply gave them the chance of becoming the owners of the land they tilled. Nothing could be more reasonable than that suggestion. He hoped hon. Members would not be prejudiced because it had been sent down by the Lords. He would like to hear from private Members representing rural constituencies some argument as to why the Amendment should not be carried. It was no answer to say that they thought tenancies better, or that they thought the occupiers would rather be tenants. He and his friends only wished to give them the option of becoming owners.
§ * MR. NAPIER (Kent, Faversham)said that the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill had stated he could not accept the Amendment because he feared that if the county council had the option of leasing or soiling they would make that the excuse for not putting the Act into force. The provisions of the Bill 231 relating to schemes would however render that excuse of no validity. He deeply regretted that the Liberal Government, by not accepting the Amendment, bad laid itself open to the charge to which it was not justly liable but which had been made out of doors, that they were not in favour of a peasant proprietary.
§ * MR. JESSIE COLLINGSThey have said so.
§ * MR. NAPIERsaid the Prime Minister had declared that he was in favour of-increasing the number of peasant proprietors in the country.
§ * SIR RANDAL CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)said he was entirely in agreement with one statement and one statement only of the right hon. Member for Bordesley, viz., that his views on ownerships were perfectly well known in the House. They ought to be, considering that the right hon. Gentleman had made the same speech over and over again during the fifteen meetings of the Committee upstairs and three times in the House. He was very glad that a clear issue was before the House, and he was satisfied that if a division were taken upon it their verdict would be of the same character as that of the Committee. The issue was whether the people whom the Bill was intended to benefit should be owners or occupiers. In the discussions that took place in Committee upstairs reference was made to the peasant proprietors of France, and they were advised to imitate the example which had been set in that country at the Great Revolution. But the information he received from reliable sources in France was, that the number of peasant proprietors in that country was, and had been for a long time, diminishing; and he did not want that in a generation or two, the same results should follow from the legislation they were now enacting. He hoped there would be a permanent settlement of the question, and that wealthy capitalists would not have the opportunity of buying up small proprietors in order to aggregate the land into large estates. That was the process that was going on slowly but surely in Franco. The poor peasants were tempted by fancy prices offered by wealthy men and by the tricks 232 of usurers to part with their holdings, if they created a number of small proprietors in this country, what was there to prevent the wealthy man tempting the poor man to resell his land and by such means restoring the evils of the present system, future generations having to do the work all over again. This Bill, if carried into law, would make it very difficult if not impossible to recreate existing evils. The right, hon. Member for the Bordesley Division said the Bill was based on Socialist lines, but the small Socialist wing of the House were not present to support it, and that in itself answered the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Having regard to the opportunities hon. Gentlemen opposite had of urging their views during the fifteen days the Bill was in Committee, when they opposed the Bill line by line, and also on the Second Reading and Report stages, he thought they might be content with what they had done and allow it as quickly as possible to pass into law.
§ * MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)said he much regretted that the Government could not accept this option to purchase. They had been told, and he believed it, that there would be very little land taken compulsorily. He hoped by far the large portion would be taken optionally and that many more county councils would be willing to do what they could to forward this Bill than was generally supposed. If that was so, then what was called the vice of purchase by compulsion would not come in very much, but optional purchase would be common enough, as it was only in regard to the small portions of land taken by compulsion that purchase would be prohibited. Under the whole of the voluntary part of the Bill the small holders would be able to purchase. That was obvious from the clause itself. All that hon. Gentlemen opposite desired was to give the option to purchase as well as to lease under the compulsory clause. It also fitted in with Clause 2, under which the Commissioners would ascertain the extent to which there was a demand for small holdings and would, he supposed, go round the country and report to the Board of Agriculture that so many people in a district wanted to buy small, holdings, and so many wanted to lease them, and it would depend upon how much land was sold optionally whether those 233 who desired to acquire it by purchase could do so. On the other hand, when land was taken compulsorily and leased, with regard to that minute portion, the power to purchase would not obtain. He regretted that this option of purchase was not given, because it was evidently a mere matter of detail in no way affecting the principle of the Bill, which had his warm support.
§ * MR. GRETTON (Rutland)said he thought the hon. Member who had just sat down was under a misapprehension with regard to this Bill. Over and over again members of the Government responsible for it had declared it was a hiring Bill. In this clause there was no option of purchase whatever. All it said was that county councils desiring to lease could do so compulsorily. Again and again they had tried to improve the Small Holdings Act of 1902, by moving amendments to this Bill, which the Government as steadily refused to accept. It was a remarkable thing that all through the debates all those simple souls in the House who were really anxious for the establishment of small holdings supported this option of purchase, and only those who viewed the inner meaning of the Bill supported the Government. He believed that the real object of the Bill was political and
§ that the Government did not wish to establish small proprietors in this country. If their object was really to set up a free and independent peasantry, by rejecting this Amendment they would damnify their own measure.
§ MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)said that, speaking for a large agricultural constituency, he knew there was no desire in that constituency for the purchase of small holdings, but there was a very strong desire among the labourers and small farmers who had saved a little money to obtain small holdings. They would much prefer the Bill as it passed the House of Commons to the Bill in the form in which it had come down to them from the House of Lords. They did not seek compulsory powers to expropriate the great landlords for the purpose of setting up a great number of small landlords who, probably under the pressure of money-lenders, would sell the land again. They had not idolised the existing landowners, nevertheless they did not think that such landowners as would come after in the manner he described would be better; in fact they thought they might be worse.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 30. (Division List No. 460.)
235| AYES. | ||
| Alden, percy. | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E. | Ferens, T. R. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Ffrench, Peter | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Lough, Thomas |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Fuller, Joho Michael F. | Lupton, Arnold |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | G'adstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs) |
| Bowerman, C W. | Grant, Carrie | Maclean, Donald |
| Branch, James | Gulland, John W. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | M'Callum, John M. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hedges, A. Paget | M'Crae, George |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Cherry, lit. Hon. R. R. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Celand, J. W. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Clough, William | Horniman, Emslie John | Marnham, F. J. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Hyde, Clarendon | Massie, J. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Idris, T. H. W. | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Corbett, C H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd | Illingworth, Percy H. | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Cox, Harold | Jackson, R. S. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Cremer, Sir William Randal | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Montgomery, H. G. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Jowett, F. W. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Kekewich, Sir George | Murray, James |
| Elibank, Master of | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Nicholls, George |
| Essex, R. W. | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Leese, Sir JosephF. (Accrington) | Nuttall, Harry |
| O'Malley, William | Runciman, Walter | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Radford, G. H. | Sherwell, Arthur James | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro' | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Rees, J. D. | Simon, John Allsebrook | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n | Snowden, P. | Winfrey, R. |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Strachey, Sir Edward | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. | |
| Rowlands, J. | Toulmin, George | |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Fletcher, J. S. | Nield, Herbert |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Beach, Hn Michael Hugh Hicks | Gretton, John | Rawlinson, John Frederiek Peel |
| Bull, Sir William James | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cave, George. | Hills, J. W. | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hunt, Rowland | |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham | Magnus, Sir Philip | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander, Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Napier, T. B. | |
| Fell, Arthur | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
Lords Amendment disagreed to.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 4, line 40, after the word 'land' to insert: '(3) No laud shall be acquired by a county council without their county except with the consent of the council of the county in which such land is situate, provided that any county council aggrieved by a refusal to give such consent may appeal to the Board, and the Board shall have power finally to determine all questions arising under this subjection and to settle the terms of arrangement (if any) between the county councils of their respective counties,'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURT,in asking the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment, said he had given a pledge to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire, who had expressed great anxiety that the Birmingham authorities should have power to take or acquire land in Worcestershire. Before compulsory powers were put into force for acquiring land in another county the Board of Agriculture had to be consulted, and it alone would confer the compulsory powers.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid that in this case there was a provision that if the county 236 council refused to give consent the Board of Agriculture might, under the subsection, determine all questions. He was not going to put the House to the trouble of dividing; he knew it would be perfectly useless, but he thought the alteration made in another place was perfectly reasonable, and that the Amendment ought to be accepted.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid the Government's proposal would lead to a great deal of friction in the future, and that it would be a source of bad administration and extravagance. It violated the principle that the people of a county ought to have a voice in their self-government, and, further, if a neighbouring county council invaded their area they would have no protection at all, but would be entirely at the mercy of what was in this connection a foreign authority.
§ MR. HARCOURTThey have the protection of the Board of Agriculture.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid they had not that amount of confidence in the Board of Agriculture; he would rather have the protection of his own county council and such influence as he could exert over his brother electors than the Board of Agriculture in London.
§ SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington),said he quite agreed with the noble Lord. In Somersetshire they were perfectly willing to give these, powers to the county council, but what they objected to was the County Council of London or some great borough sending men down to be placed on the land in different counties, and using those counties as colonies. They were willing to extend hospitality to their own county, but not to London and to other parts of the country. They believed that the best way to arrest rural depopulation was to throw the land open to men who knew something about cultivation, and were skilled labourers, and not to men from cities who had no agricultural knowledge, who must inevitably make a failure, and who in the end might become a charge on the ratepayers.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid he had been informed that London had no intention of relieving its congestion at the expense of Somerset. The Board of Agriculture would take no steps to associate the population of a town with any county without carefully considering whether it was likely to be beneficial.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 5, line 2, after the words 'for' to insert the word 'selling or,' and after the word 'and' to insert the words 'sold or,'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid he did not know that it was necessary to pursue the question. This was a consequential Amendment, and he moved to disagree.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 5, line 19, after the word 'constituted' to insert the words 'under rules approved by the Board,'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid these words were unnecessary, and he moved to disagree. The words confined approval to the rule, but he wanted the Board to consider the constitution of the whole of these Associations, and he did not think the mere approval of the rule was sufficient.
§
Lords Amendment—
In age 5, line 33, after the word 'council,' insert the words 'as agricultural holdings.'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURT moved to disagree. it was obvious that these words were not necessary in this place, because the county council could only deal with the and so acquired for the purpose of small holdings and allotments. The words of the clause were carefully drawn, so that lot more than one dwelling-house for occupation should be erected on one mall holding.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 6, to leave out Clause 13,
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid that when he saw this Amendment on the paper his heart bled for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley, because the clause had been specially inserted in order to meet his views. But he had received a subsequent assurance that the clause was omitted solely because the repeal was included in the schedule of the Bill. The noble Lord, however, who had carried this Amendment, had not realised the statutory rule that no substantive repeal could be put in the schedule without being in the body of the Bill; therefore, it would be necessary to reinstate Clause 13. He moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 7, line 3, after the word 'district' to insert the words 'as agents for the county council,'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid that these words were in the Local Government Act of 1894, Section 4, which provided that the county council might employ other subsidiary authorities in their district. He moved to agree.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 10, lines Hi to 20, to leave out Subsection (2) and to insert '(2) The powers of improving and adapting land for allotments under the Allotments Act shall include power to erect or permit to be erected any stable, cowhouse, or barn,'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid that this was an Amendment made in the House of Lords on the Third Reading. The noble Lord had found that by the removal of the subsection there would not be power under the existing law to erect even a pig-stye upon the allotment. The right which he desired originally to extend by the subsection was in accordance with the recommendation of Lord Onslow's Committee. It was quite clear that they must have larger powers to deal with buildings on allotments, especially as they had increased the size of the allotments. Surely, it was quite a sufficient protection that there was not to be erected more than one house for occupation on any one allotment. He moved to disagree with the Amendment.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 11, line 20, agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment—
In line 20, after the word 'section' to insert the words 'and have refused to comply with a representation made by the council of the urban district or parish for the compulsory acquisition of land for allotments,'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid it was extremely difficult to understand what this amendment meant. He thought there must be some misunderstanding, and the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps consent to disagree.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 12, line 16, to leave out from the word 'shall' to the end of line 19. and to insert the words 'empower the council to acquire the land in accordance with the provisions of this Act,'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid the object of the words struck out by the Lords was to avoid any subsequent litigation. There 240 must be a point at which litigation should be stopped, otherwise the county council would never be in a position to know when they could proceed to adapt and build upon the land. By the Bill as it left this House that point was when the order had been made absolute by the Board of Agriculture. He moved to disagree.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ Mr. CHAPLINsaid there was no doubt that this Amendment was of very great importance, and he would like the House to consider the answer to one question which he was going to put. The Bill said that the Order when so confirmed was to become final, and was to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act had been complied with, and that the Order had been duly made within the powers of this Act. After all, none of them were infallible, not even the Board of Agriculture. Supposing for a moment that the requirements had not been complied with, and that the Order had not been duly made, and was not within the powers of the Act, what was going to be the position then? The Board of Agriculture, by the clause as it stood, had a very wide, and it seemed to him, dangerous power. It would be in a position which would enable them to override a different opinion on the part of the Courts; it made the Board of Agriculture a Court in itself finally to decide upon its Own acts and its own proceedings. He was informed that this power was very rarely inserted in Acts of Parliament, though, he was told, that no doubt it was in some Acts. It was not a usual thing to insert in an Act, and why it should be inserted, in a Bill dealing with this particular question he really did not understand. It seemed to him to be giving a very dangerous power to the Board of Agriculture, who were no more entitled to have it than any other Department of the Government, or anybody else. He thought a power of appeal ought to be given in, at all events, those cases where the Commissioners acted in default of the county council. Such a power of appeal was given in the Irish Evicted Tenants Bill, and he could not understand why it should be refused here. He hoped the 241 right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this proposal.
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman took such a serious view of the effect of these words. The landlord was not, under the clause as it left this House, deprived of any right of appeal either to the Board or to the Courts that he would have except when a certain stage—when the Order had been made absolute—had been reached. There were all the usual legal remedies before the Order was made, and the words of the Bill had been taken word for word from another statute. The Light Railways Act was a parallel case. The moment the Order was made it ought to be treated as final in order to prevent any further disputes and to avoid having the matter reopened. They were only following precedent in this matter, and he felt sure the House would, agree with him when he said that it would be a great mistake after the Order had been made, after the man had been put into the tenancy and had probably erected buildings on the land, to allow anybody to raise a dispute.
MR. CHAPLIXsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had not met his point that an appeal was given under the Evicted Tenants Bill and refused in this Bill.
§ MR. CAVEput the ease of an Order containing provisions which went beyond the Act. If the words omitted in another place remained, the person whose land was taken under the Order, which, on his hypothesis, was beyond the powers of the Act, would have no redress at all. The mere fact that a public department, rightly or wrongly, had confirmed the Order would be conclusive. Whether there was precedent or not, that was a wrong thing to put in an Act of Parliament. In many cases it was impossible for owners to intervene until the Order was actually made. Let them imagine a case where a Board was going to confirm an Order and the owner objected. He would have no chance whatever of succeeding. When an Order was wrongly confirmed and came to be enforced, surely the owner had a right to say, "This Order exceeds the power given under the Act of Parliament." He hoped his hon. friend would press this Amendment to a division.
§ MR. WINFREYpointed out that there would be two inquiries before the Order was made.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 130; Noes, 28. (Division List No. 461.)
243| AYES. | ||
| Alden, Percy | Dobson, Thomas W. | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Edwards, Clements (Denbigh) | Jackson, R. S. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Elibank, Master of | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Essex, R. W. | Jowett, F. W. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Everett, R. Lacey | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex Romford) | Ferens, T. R. | Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington |
| Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon) | Ffrench, Peter | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Branch, James | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes. Leigh) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lough, Thomas |
| Burns Rt. Hon. John | Grant, Corrie | Lupton, Arnold |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Gulland, John W. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Lewis | Macdonald, J M. (Falkirk Bg'hs |
| Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r) | Maclean, Donald |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Hazelton, Richard | MacVeigh Charles (Donegal E.) |
| Clough, William | Hedges, A. Paget | MCallum, John M. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | M'Crae, George |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen. W.) | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Corbett, C. H (Sussex E Gr'inst'd) | Hobart, Sir Robert. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Cox, Harold | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Manfield, Harry (Nothants) |
| Cromer, Sir William Randal | Horniman, Emslie John | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Crooks, William | Hyde, Clarendon | Marnham, F. J. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Idris, I. H. W. | Massie, J. |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Richards, T F (Wolverhampton | Thompson, J. H. W. (Somerset, E |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Roberts, Charles, H. (Lincoln) | Toulmin, George |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Verney, F. W. |
| Montgomery, H. G. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Ward, John (Stake upon Trent |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Ward, W (Dudley Southampton |
| Murray, James | Rowlands, J. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Napier, T. B. | Rumanian, Walter | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Nicholls, George | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Norton, Capt, Cecil William | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Nuttall, Harry | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| O'Malley, William | Sherwell, Arthur James | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) | Simon, John Allsebrook | Wilson, W. T. Westhoughton) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Snowden, P. | Winfrey, R. |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.) | |
| Radford, G. H. | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whitelry and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | |
| Rea, Waller Russell (Scarboro' | Strachey, Sir Edward | |
| Rees, J. D. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Aclard-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex F. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Nield, Herbert |
| Balcarres, Lord | Faber, George Denison (York) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fletcher, J. S. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Forster, Henry William | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bull, Sir William James | Gretton, John | Thomson, W Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Harris, Frederick Leverton | |
| Cave, George | Hunt, Rowland | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Hills and Mr. Fell. |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip | |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J (Birmingham) | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield) |
Lords Amendment disagreed to.
§
Amendment—
In page 12, line 22, after the word 'acquired' to insert the words 'and every such order shall, if so required by the owner of the land to be acquired, provide for the creation of such new easements as are reasonably necessary to secure the continued use and enjoyment by such owner and his tenants of all means of access, drainage, water supply, and other similar conveniences theretofore used or enjoyed by them over the land to be acquired: provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in this subsection, no new easement created by or in pursuance of such order over land hired by a council shall continue beyond the determination of such hiring,'
§ Read a second time and agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 15, lines 24 and 25, to leave out the words 'authorised by an order under this Act to be.'
§ Read a second time.
§ SIR W. ROBSON,in moving that the House disagree with the Amendment, said it was really consequential on the Amendment decided by the last division.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid he understood this Amendment by the Lords was accepted by the Government.
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid his noble friend the Lord Chancellor thought that the words did not make very much difference.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 15, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words 'for the purposes of small holdings or allotments' and to insert the words 'under this Act.'
§ Read a second time.
§ SIR W. ROBSON moved to agree with the Lords Amendment to leave out the words "for the purposes of small holdings or allotments."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment, to leave out the words for the purposes of small holdings or allotments.'"—(Sir W. Robson.)
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House disagree with the Lords Amendment to insert 'under this Act.'"—(Sir W. Robson.)
§ Motion agreed to.
245
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 15, line 27, to leave out the words 'or other land,' and to insert the words 'home farm or is otherwise,'
§ Read a second time.
§
Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—
To leave out the Words 'home farm.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'home farm' stand part of the Lords Amendment."
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid he was in the House of Lords when this matter was discussed and he remembered distinctly that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill accepted this Amendment on behalf of the Government.
§ MR. HICKS BEACHasked why the Government proposed to leave out these words.
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid he was instructed that the Government did not accept the words "home farm."
§ MR. WINFREYsad the Government offered to accept the words "home farm on any estate," but the words "on any estate" were negatived.
§ MR. CAVEwished to know what was the difference. If the words "on any estate" were not objectionable, he could not see why the words "home farm" were objectionable.
MR. HAROOURTsaid in Committee and also on the Report Stage in that House, the right hon. Gentleman opposite agreed that it would be unwise to put the words "home farm" in this clause, on the ground that the person who was to decide whether a farm was to be taken or not would say the clause stated specifically the only sort of farm that was not to be taken. It was generally agreed that it was an unwise limitation. It would be a mistake from the right hon. Gentleman's own point of view to put those words in the clause. The words "on any estate" had in law some limiting effect. The Government proposed to disagree with the insertion of "home farm," but to agree with the remainder of the Amendment. In all the discussions of this measure he had done his best only to raise points which seemed to him to be worthy of serious consideration, and he was grievously disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman should sweep away the words altogether.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)suggested by way of compromise to put in the words "home farm on the estate."
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid that those words were offered and rejected by the House of Lords.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes, 136. (Division List No. 462.)
247| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Craik, Sir Henry | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Balcanes, Lord | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Nield, Herbert |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fell, Arthur | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Beach, Hn. Miehael Hugh Hicks | Fletcher, J. S. | Rawlinson John Frederick Peel |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Forster, Henry William | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bull, Sir William James | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Carille, E. Hildred | Guinness, Walter Edward | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk |
| Cave, George | Hamilton, Marquess of | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W. | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Jaoicey- | Hills, J. W. | |
| Chaplin, Ht. Hon. Henry | Hunt, Rowland | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Gretton and Mr. Georg Faber. |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmmgh'm | Magnus, Sir Philip | |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| NOES. | ||
| Alden, Percy | Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Beauchamp, E. | Bethel), T. R. (Essex Maldon |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Berridge, T. H. D. | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Idris, T. H. W. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Branch, James | Illingworth, Percy H. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Jackson, R. S. | Radford, C. H. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Button, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Jowett, F. W. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Kekewich, Sir George | Rees, J. D. |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richar Knight | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Leese, Sir Jose, hW. (Accrington | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Clough, William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lewis, John Herbert | Rowlands, J. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lough, Thomas | Runciman, Walter |
| Corbett, C. H (Sussex. E. Grinst'd | Lupton, Arnold | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Cox, Harold | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Cremer, Sir William Randal | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Crooks, William | Maclean, Donald | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Macpherson, J. T. | Snowden, P. |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W) |
| Elibank, Master of | M'Callum, John M. | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Essex, R. W. | M'Crae, George | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E |
| Ffrench, Peter | Marks, G. Croydon (Launcesto n) | Toulmin, George |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Marnham, F. J | Verney, F. W. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Massie, J. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton |
| Grunt, Corrie | Masterman, C. F. G. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Gulland, John W. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Molteno, Percy Alport | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r) | Montgomery, H. G. | Whitley, John Heury (Halifax) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morrell, Philip | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Hazleton, Richard | Murray, James | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Napier, T. B. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham | Nicholls, George | Winfrey, R. |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster | |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A Pease. |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Nuttall, Harry | |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | |
| Hyde, Clarendon | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
Lords Amendment disagreed to.
§ Amendment, as amended, and agreed to.
§ Consequential Amendment made.
§ A consequential Amendment made to the Bill.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 15, line 28 after the word 'dwelling-house,' to insert the words 'or which is woodland not wholly surrounded by land acquired by a council under this Act,'
§ Read a second time, and amended, by inserting after the first word "by," the words "or adjacent to."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 15, line 31, after the word 'undertaking,' to insert the words 'or includes the
248
site of any ancient monument or place of historic or archæological interest,' "the next Amendment.
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid he was sorry he could not accept these words, but he did not think that the House need have the least doubt that those sites would be properly preserved. He might point out that a place of historic interest might be every battlefield over the whole country, which was now occupied as agricultural land. That obviously was not the meaning intended by the Lords Amendment. No land could be taken compulsorily without the order of the Board of Agriculture, and the House might be satisfied that the Board would never authorise the taking of any place which was the site of an ancient 249 monumentor place of historic orarchœological interest. If by any chance they failed, there was the First Commissioner of Works, who was authorised to protect these things.
§ MR. CHAPLINasked the First Commissioner of Works if it was not the fact that the President of the Board of Agriculture accepted this Amendment in the House of Lords?
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid that the noble Lord had allowed the Amendment to be put in order that it might be carefully considered afterwards.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid he had full confidence in the First Commissioner of Works.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 16, line 4, agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 16, line 4, to leave out from the word 'holding' to the end of the subsection and to insert the words which either does not exceed fifty acres, or, if exceeding fifty acres, is of an annual value for the purposes of income-tax not exceeding £50, nor any part of such holding shall be acquired compulsorily under this Act.'
§ Road a secone time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid he was not able to accept the Amendment as it stood. He would take a rather exaggerated case in order to make the thing clear. Suppose there was a hill farm or a down farm, let at Is. per acre, and that it consisted of 1,000 acres, not an acre of it could be taken for a small holding for the purposes of intensive cultivation, unless 50 acres were taken. As he had the opportunity he intended to move to make the subsection read: "No holding which either
§ does not exceed fifty acres, or, if exceeding fifty acres, is of an annual value for the purposes of income-tax, not exceeding £50, nor any part of such holding shall be acquired compulsorily under this Act.'
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ MR. CHAPLINThe right hon. Gentleman seamed somewhat apprehensive as to whether a desirable small holding might be cut out of a farm of 1,000 acres let at Is. an acre. All he could say was, "God help the small holder" under such conditions. He thought the right hon. Gentleman's reason for disagreeing with the Lords Amendment was scarcely worthy of consideration. It was not a great thing to ask. The words were taken out of the definition of the small holding itself, and it seemed a little unreasonable to refuse not to interfere with a holding which was the exact description of a small holding under the terms of the Small Holdings Act of 1902 and incorporated in this Act.
§ MR. HICKS BEACHsaid that all this Amendment did was to exempt a holding defined in this Bill as a small holding. If it was objectionable that such a holding should be taken and broken up for small holdings or allotments it was as objectionable to create a similar holding which would be defined as a small holding under this Bill. He did not think the reasons given for refusing to accept the Lords Amendments were reasonable.
§ Quest ion put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 134; Noes, 37. (Division List No. 463.)
251| AYES. | ||
| Alden, Percy | Branch, James | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Brunner, J. F. L., (Lancs., Leigh) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Cooper, G. J. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd |
| Beauchamp, E. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Cowan, W. H. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Cremer, Sir William Randal |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Cheatham, John Frederick | Crooks, William |
| Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon) | Cherry, Et. Hon. R. R. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Clongh, William | Dobson, Thomas W. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Clynes, J. R. | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) |
| Elibank, Master of | Lough, Thomas | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Essex, R. W. | Lupton, Arnold | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Ferens, T. R. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Rowlands, J. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Runciman, Walter |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Macpherson, J. T. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal. E.) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Callum, John M. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | M'Crae, George | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Her bert John | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Grant, Corrie | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Gulland, John W. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Snowden, P. |
| Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Marnham, F. J. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r) | Massie, J | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Molteno, Percy Alport | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Montgomery, H. G. | Toulmin, George |
| Henderson, J. M. (A berdeen, W.) | Morrell, Philip | Verney, F. W. |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Horniman, Kmslie John | Murray, James | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton |
| Hyde, Clarendon | Napier, T. B. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Nicholls, George | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doneaster | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Jackson, R. S. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Nuttall, Harry | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Lambert, George | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton |
| Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras) E. | Radford, G. H. | Winfrey, R. |
| Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington) | Rainy, A. Rolland | |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Rees, J. D. | |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fell, Arthur | Nield, Herbert |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fletcher, J. S. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Forster, Henry William | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Gibbg, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Guinness, Walter Edward | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cave, George | Hamilton, Marquess of | Stanley, Hon. Arthur. (Ormskirk) |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W. | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Hills, J. W. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire). |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hunt, Rowland | |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Gretton and Mr. Hicks Beach. |
| Court hope, G. Loyd | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount |
Lords Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendments—
In page 16, line 4, to leave out from the word 'holding' to the end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'which either does not excceed fifty acres, or, if exceeding fifty acres, is of an annual value for the purposes of income-tax not exceeding fifty pounds, nor any part of such holding shall be acquired compulsorily under this Act.'
In page 16, line 8, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'subject to the restriction by this Act imposed.'
§ Read a second time and agreed to.
252
§
Lords Amendments—
In page 16, line 36, alter the word 'purposes' to insert the words or for the making of roads, reservoirs, railways, or other similar works necessary for the improvement and development of the estate.'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid these words appeared to be too large an extension of the general wording of the Bill; but he believed he would meet the wishes of 253 those who moved them if he moved to disagree with the Amendment, and to insert in line 36, after the words "purposes," the words "or for roads necessary therefor." He moved.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ MR. CHAPLINasked was it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make no provision except for roads?
§ MR. HARCOURTThat is so.
§ MR. CHAPLINthought they might leave out railways and reservoirs, but "other similar works necessary for the improvement and development of the estate" were very important.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid he had reason to believe the words he had suggested would be acceptable.
§ Amendment made to the Bill instead of the last Lords Amendment disagreed to, by inserting in line 3G after the word "purposes," the words "or for roads necessary therefor."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 17, at the end of Clause 33, to insert the words 'Where the land has been hired compulsorily by the Commissioners acting in default of a county council, any question as to the right of the landlord to resume possession of the land or any part thereof under this section shall be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of England.'
§ Agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 18, lines 13 and 14, to leave out Subsection (4)."—read a second timn.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid it was impossible to accept this Amendment. The enactment which the Government had proposed to repeal by this clause was the one that prohibited the erection on an allotment of any building except a tool- 254 house, shed, fowl-house, or pigsty, and compelled the local authority to pull down any buildings that were erected. It had always been the intention of the Government under this Bill that the clause as to buildings should be extended, and for that reason he moved that the House do disagree with this Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 19, at the end of Clause 36, to insert the words '(3) Where any receipts or payments of money under this Act are entrusted by the county council to the Small Holdings and Allotments Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, the accounts of those receipts and payments shall be accounts of the county council, and made up and audited accordingly.'
§ MR. HARCOURTI move to agree with this Amendment. We desire that these accounts should be subject to audit.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 19, line 28, to leave out the words any society.'"—read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid this and the three following Amendments were consequential, and had been put in by the Government in another place, in response to a very reasonable objection that was taken, to make it quite clear that they did not guarantee the solvency of any society, but simply the definite advance to it of a sum of money. He moved to agree with the Lords Amendments.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 20, line 39, agreed.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 20, line 39, after the word 'appointed' to insert the words 'in default of agreement between the parties.'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURT moved to disagree.
§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)asked if there was any explanation to be given.
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid repeated discussions had already taken place on this. The reason was that the State had undertaken to pay the arbitrator, and it was desirable that they should have the appointment and not the parties.
§ MR. CHAPLINconsidered the explanation most unsatisfactory. Why should not the parties be left to come to an agreement between themselves as to the appointment of an arbitrator? There seemed to be a desire on the part of the promoters of the Bill to put every conceivable thing they could, necessary or unnecessary, in the hands of the Board of Agriculture. Why ought it to be for the Board of Agriculture to appoint an arbitrator, when the two parties could perfectly well agree upon an arbitrator of their own? It was an entire departure from any practice they or anybody else had ever heard of in the drafting of a Bill.
§ MR. HICKS BEACHsaid the chief reason given why the Board were to appoint the arbitrator was that the Treasury were going to pay. He wished
| AYES. | ||
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Ferens, T. R. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Alden, Percy | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lough, Thomas |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Fowler, Rt. Ron. Sir Henry | Lupton, Arnold |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Fuller, John Michael F. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Macdonald, J. M. (FarkirkB'ghs) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Grant, Corrie | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Gulland, John W. | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) |
| Bowerman, C. W | Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton | M'Callum, John M. |
| Branch, James | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | M'Crae, George |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Harmsworth, Cecil G. (Wore'r) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Hazel, D. A. E. | Marnham, F. J. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hazleton, Richard | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Canston, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Hedges, A. Paget | Massie, J. |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Clough, William | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Clynes, J. R. | Holland, Sir William Henry | Montgomery, H. G. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Horniman, Emslie John | Morrell, Philip |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hyde, Clarendon | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Cooper, G. J. | Idris, T. H. W. | Murray, James |
| Corbett, C. H. (Susexs, E. Grinst'd | Illingworth, Percy H. | Napier, T. B. |
| Cowan, W. H. | Jackson, R. S. | Nicholls, George |
| Cremer, Sir William Randal | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster |
| Crooks, William | Kekewich, Sir George | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Lambert, George | O'Malley, William |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Lea, Hugh Ceeil (St. Pancras, E.) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) |
| Elibank, Master of | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
| Essex, R. W. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Levy, Sir Maurice | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
§ they were certain of that, because their chief contention was that they had no security that the Treasury would pay.
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid it was part of the preliminary expenses.
§ MR. GEORGE FABER (York)pointed out that the Bill only said that the Board might "if it thinks fit" undertake to pay out of the Small Holdings Fund "the whole or any part of the expenses incurred by the council in relation to the acquisition of land." It was entirely in the discretion of the Board.
§ SIR W. ROBSONwas understood to say that this point did not come within the county council's province, but it did come within that of the Treasury
§ Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided:—Ages, 140; Noes, 38. (Division List No. 464.)
257| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent |
| Radford, G. H. | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Simon, John Allsebrook | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Rees, J. D. | Snowden, P. | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rowlands, J. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E | Winfrey, R. |
| Runciman, Walter | Toulmin, George | |
| Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Ure, Alexander | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A Pease. |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Verney, F. W. | |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne | Walters, John Tudor |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood. Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Fell, Arthur | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fletcher, J. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Forster, Henry William | Nield, Herbert |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Gretton, John | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Cave, George | Guinness, Walter Edward | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham | Hills, J. W. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Courthope, G Loyd | Hunt, Rowland | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Hicks Beach |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Magnus, Sir Philip |
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments to the Amendment, in page 23, line 12, agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 23, line 12, after the word 'arbitrator' to insert the words 'agreed upon between the parties or in default of agreement,'
§ Read a second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid this was a case in which the State was undertaking a very large part of the cost of creating small holdings, and it was necessary when undertaking this financial burden that the machinery should be as inexpensive as possible. In relation to this particular part of the Bill it was only right in these circumstances that the whole responsibility should rest with the central authority. It was by no means 258 desirable that the local arbitrator should always decide in these cases.
§ MR. CHAPLINcould not see any objection in principle to the two contending parties electing the arbitrator. The Solicitor-General had told them that as the State was undertaking so large a part of the cost above all things the appointment of the arbitrator should be an inexpensive proceeding. It was not denied that the appointment of an arbitrator by the two parties might be the best and most proper way of coming to a decision. As regarded the expense, the Attorney-General appeared to have overlooked Subsection 6 in the same schedule which provided every conceivable check upon the cost. Surely arbitrary powers of this kind to disallow any kind of costs were unnecessary. In view of these facts the opposition of the Solicitor-General to the selection of an arbitrator by the two parties fell to the ground altogether. A more unsatisfactory reply or one less suited to the occasion he did not think he had ever heard in his life.
§ MR. CAVEasked if it was the intention of the Government that the Board should undertake the preliminary expenses.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid he had stated constantly that that was the intention. He did not think that the Board should be compelled to pay all the expenses which might be run up, but it was always their intention to pay the preliminary expenses.
§ MR. RAWLINSONcontended that the two parties concerned were the best judges as to the appointment of an arbitrator. The Board had already got power to fix the amount of remuneration to be paid to the arbitrator or valuer, and therefore it was a fixed quantity, and if the parties incurred expenses above the scale fixed by the Board they would have to pay it themselves. It was well known that in many parts of the country there were certain valuers who would give satisfaction to both parties, and surely if both parties wished to have that man they ought to have that power. Was it not rather hard that the Board of Agriculture should always send down and pay the arbitrator? In one case they had a local man who could dispose of the question to the satisfaction of both parties, while in the other case they had a stranger who knew nothing of the locality, who might make a mistake and who certainly would not give the same satisfaction as a person chosen in the way he had indicated. The parties would far sooner have an arbitrator of their own choosing than one who would start possibly with a prejudice against them. He hoped the Government would reconsider their decision.
§ * MR. HICKS BEACHsaid the argument on the score of expense had been disposed of by his hon. and learned friend. He understood the Government to prefer that local arbitrators should not be chosen.
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid there might be a number of arbitrations in one district. In one or two cases a local arbitrator might be employed, and in others an 260 arbitrator from headquarters might act. It might be extremely inconvenient to have local arbitrators in one or two cases and central arbitrators doing the rest of the work. The Government thought it better to have the arbitrator appointed by the central authority.
§ * MR. HICKS BEACHsaid the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman now was not in consonance with what he said earlier. Why did he object to the arbitrator being appointed by agreement between the two parties? The appointment of an arbitrator by the central authority might involve the Treasury in considerable expense. The land in this country differed materially in value in different counties. It might be very dangerous to send a valuer from Middlesex to Cornwall or Devonshire, because, although he acted with the very best intention, he might put a purely fictitious value on the land, which in one case might be unfair on the landlord and in another might be unfair on the Treasury or the local ratepayer.
§ MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)said it appeared to him that this Amendment was drafted for the purpose of delaying operations—
§ MR. CHAPLINasked whether the hon. Member was entitled to impute motives to hon. Members.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must not attribute motives to Members of this House. I do not see that the observation of the hon. Gentleman is relevant to the question before the House.
§ MR. J. WARDsaid that, if he had been allowed to finish the sentence, he was going to say that the Amendment appeared to be drafted for the purpose of delaying the arbitration proceedings. He hoped he was entitled to make that observation. It seemed to him that first of all the parties would probably disagree and that eventually an application would have to be made to the Board of Agriculture. In that way time would be lost.
§ MR. GRETTONsaid hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House had not been able to fathom the real reason for the Government's refusal to agree to this Amendment. If the parties to a dispute could agree on an arbitrator, there should be no objection to his being appointed. Did the Government wish to create a number of salaried posts and put their own friends into them? That seemed to be a feasible motive. Another
§ reason might be that by appointing arbitrators of their own they could get a fictitious value put on the land. The Government should state exactly what their reason was.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 140; Noes, 36. (Division List No. 465.)
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Faber, George Denison (York) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Balearres, Lord | Fell, Arthur | Pease, Herbert Pike Darlington |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fletcher, J. S. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Forster, Henry William | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Guinness, Walter Edward | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Cave, George | Hamilton, Marquess of | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W. | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.). |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hills, J. W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Gretton and Earl of Ronaldshay. |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham) | Hunt, Rowland | |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Morpeth, Viscount |
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 23, line 32, to leave out the words 'by the Board' and to insert the words 'under this schedule.'
§ Read a second time, and disagreed to.
§ An Amendment made to the Bill, instead of the last Lords Amendment disagreed to "in page 23, line 32, by leaving out the words 'an arbitrator appointed by the Board,' and inserting the words 'the arbitrator,' "—(Mr. Harcourt)—instead thereof.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 23, line 33, to leave out from the word 'experience' to the word 'but' in line 36.'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURT moved formally to agree with the Lords Amendment, because he intended to re-insert the words in page 24, after line 2, where they would be more convenient. The words had been discussed in Grand Committee. It was perfectly true that this was only one of the elements involved. The arbitrator must naturally consider rent and rating and assessment, as one of the elements which indicated the value at which he should arrive. These words were not originally in the Bill, but they represented a concession which he made in Committee—he thought it was a very good concession—and he was not prepared to recede from it.
264§ Lords Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
In Schedule 1, page 24, after line 2, to insert the following paragraph, 'The arbitrator in assessing compensation to be paid for land to be compulsorily acquired shall take into consideration the rent (if any) at which the land has been last let, and the annual value at which the land is assessed for the purposes of income-tax and rating.'
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment, "In lines 35 and 36, to leave out the words 'unless otherwise agreed to keep the buildings in repair and." Agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 24, line 40, after the word aforesaid' to insert the words 'and (unless otherwise agreed) to pay all taxes, rates, and charges usualy borne by tenants to insure the buildings, and to keep the buildings and premises demised in repair, and shall, if the landlord has given notice in the prescribed manner that he so desires, provide for the reservation to him, and persons authorised by him, of exclusive rights of fishing and sporting over the land.'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid that he first of all proposed to disagree with this Amendment and then to amend the Bill by inserting after "aforesaid" these words, 265 "And unless otherwise agreed to keep the buildings and premises demised in repair," and later on to insert in subsection (4) the words," The terms and conditions of the hiring, including any reservation of sporting or fishing rights." He was omitting the absolute covenant to pay all taxes and rates, because, on the whole, it was more convenient that that should be a matter for settlement between the Board, the county council, and the landlord. With regard to the question of game, that point was never raised in this House, either in Committee or on Report, and Members of all shades of opinion were agreed that that was a matter which ought to be left to the discretion of the county council and the Board for settlement. It was perfectly clear that they were not setting up sporting rights. The Board, except under very exceptional circumstances, would never authorise the taking of game rights. Of course, that would inflate the rent. The people who would agree about the sporting rights would be the landlord, who might want to keep them or get rid of them; the county council, who would not want to pay a higher rent in order to hand them over to the tenant; and the Board, who would not be interested in them. It was wiser to leave the matter perfectly open. In another place there seemed to be some anxiety lest the game and fishing rights should not be considered by the valuer, if they were taken from the landlord, in assessing the rent. Therefore he proposed to provide in the Bill that the vainer should take into account "any reservation of sporting or fishing rights." He believed those words covered the whole of the question that had been raised.
§ Lords Amendment disagreed to.
§
Amendments made to the Bill—
Instead of the last Lords Amendment disagreed to, by inserting in page 24, line 40, after the word 'aforesaid,' to insert the words 'and unless otherwise agreed to keep the buildings and premises demised in repair,' and by inserting in page 25, line 21, after the word 'severance' to insert the words the terms and conditions of hiring, including any reservation of sporting or fishing rights.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 24, line 42, to leave out the words 'that it can be so broken without depreciating the value of the land or.'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURT moved to disagree with this Amendment. It was not clear to him why these words had been taken out. They were not meant to apply to rich pasture; they were only meant to apply to poor pasture which might be made more valuable if intensively tilled. He was sure it would be a great disadvantage to have these words removed.
§ Lords Amendment disagreed to.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 25, line 2, after the word 'not,' to insert the words 'except with the consent of the landlord,' and after the word 'to,' to insert the words 'fell or cut timber or trees, or any right to.'
§ Agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 25, line 5, after the word, 'allotments,' to insert the words 'for which proper compensation shall be paid to the landlord,
§ Read a Second time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid he proposed to amend this Amendment by adding new words. He wished to substitute for the words of the Amendment the words "and except the payment of compensation for minerals, gravel or clay so used."
§ Lords Amendment disagreed to.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill instead of the last Lords Amendment disagreed to—
In page 25, line 5, after the word 'allotment,' to insert the words 'except the payment of compensation for; minerals, gravel, or clay so used.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ MR. J. WARDasked whether gravel necessary for roads and paths was to be paid for in addition to the rent.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid it was. He would point out that this land was taken only for agricultural purposes.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 25, line 16, to leave out the word 'valuation,' and insert the word 'arbitration,' and leave out the word 'valuer,' and insert the words 'arbitrator agreed on between the parties or in default of agreement.'
§ Read a second time.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid this Amendment made a very important change in the Bill, and the House would the more forcibly appreciate the resistance of the Government to this proposal when they remembered their action with regard to the other Amendments relating to the arbitration provided for under the subsection. The Amendment before the House was to substitute an arbitrator for the valuer in cases where the hire of land was to be settled. The House would understand the difference between an arbitration and a valuation. The arbitrator sat as a Judge; he not only heard evidence but he could only proceed on evidence. Although in this particular case he was allowed to act on personal experience and knowledge, yet he was obliged to hear evidence and act upon it. The valuer on the other hand went down to the land, and he was able to make such inquiries as he thought fit. He had no need such as the arbitrator had to hear either party in the presence of the other; in other words, valuation instead of litigation was a business proceeding and, therefore, a much cheaper proceeding. It seemed to the Government that it was essentially a simpler and much cheaper transaction to hire a few acres of land, and that it should not be treated on the same footing and in the same way as if they were taking the land for a railway or some other such purpose. They were now dealing only with the hiring of land. They had left untouched the Lands Clauses Act and the provisions for arbitration in the case of purchase. In this instance they were dealing with hiring, and they were dealing with hiring, after all, on the terms and conditions of a lease. In these circumstances he would ask was it reasonable, was it sensible, to impose this dilatory and costly litigation as a condition precedent to the hiring of a few 268 acres of land to an agricultural labourer? Hon. Gentleman opposite had often expressed their desire to make this Bill workable, and he was sure that they would see that if they inserted this Amendment and imposed these arbitrators at this stage they would condemn the Bill to absolute sterility. They had had Acts of Parliament in which the public authority had been allowed to take land compulsorily for this purpose, and when they had come into operation they were ineffective because of the cost of the proceedings. There could not be any reasonable objection to allowing in this Bill what was the invariable rule in ordinary business transactions regarding agriculture. Where two parties bargained for the renting of land there was a valuation. But this Amendment proposed arbitration, and he hoped that the House would strongly resist any attempt of this kind to overwhelm the Bill. They had eliminated the prospective value from the Bill altogether, and they had given the landlord power to resume where the land would be useful for building, mining, or other purpose of an industrial character, so that there was no reason in settling the rent to take into consideration the element of prospective value. It was shut out. They had only to deal with the agricultural conditions, and these were such as any expert valuer could settle for himself and decide in a few hours. If instead of that they had arbitration, which meant litigation, though without lawyers, undoubtedly they would be making the Bill impracticable, and they would be offering to the peasantry of England a boon which they did not intend them to get.
§ MR. CAVEsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had exaggerated the case. Some of these Amendments had been described by the First Commissioner of Works as wrecking Amendments. He had looked right through the Bill for some kind of justification for the language which they had heard, with a great deal of astonishment, and, he must say, with some resentment on that side of the House. Up till now he had not found a single Amendment which, by the greatest stretch of imagination, could bear a description of that kind. This Amendment dealt simply with the question whether the rent was to be dealt with by 269 arbitration or valuation. The difference between the two was this—the arbitrator heard both sides and the valuer did not. The arbitrator acted on the facts as given in evidence; the valuer picked up information whore he liked, hearing one side in the absence of the other, and if he chose hearing one side and not hearing the other. If the valuer made a mistake he could not be pulled up; if the arbitrator made a mistake he could be. When land was to be taken arbitration was right; but when a rent was to be fixed and compensation was to be paid, then for some occult reason arbitration was wrong and valuation was the only thing. It was not quite accurate to suggest that if they had arbitration it would be a very expensive procedure. It was a very expensive thing with railway companies, no doubt. But in this case there was simply a single arbitrator provided for; he had not to hear expert witnesses nor counsel; he had to simply deal with the facts put before him, and it was really a great exaggeration to describe that procedure as expensive; it was a simple procedure, and he could not understand why the Government should accept arbitration for one purpose and repudiate it for another. He hoped that the matter would be considered, and that they would have for both purposes, namely, the purchase of land and the hiring of land, a tribunal which both parties could accept.
§ MR. MASTERMANsaid he had been present throughout the whole of the discussion of these Amendments, which was more than the hon. Member opposite could say. Anyone who had considered the Amendments apart from technicalities, and had grasped the inner meaning of some of them, could not honestly say that what he had stated at the beginning of the discussion was exaggerated language. Every one of these Amendments had been devised, he thought he might say, for the purpose of serving the interests of one particular class against another class.
§ MR. CAVEsaid he entirely disagreed with the hon. Member; be ides when he said exaggerated language had been used he was not referring to the hon. Member but to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThis is not an opportunity for discussing all the Amendments. 270 There are only a few more Amendments left, and the hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Amendment before the House.
§ MR. MASTERMANsaid the operation of the Amendment was to bar the various avenues by which small holders could be got on the land. It would make compulsory hiring as difficult as or rather more difficult than compulsory purchase. That was really the object of the Amendment, Thich ought to be rejected.
§ MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)said the proposal of the Government was that the valuer or arbitrator should be appointed by the Board of Agriculture, and they withdrew from the parties the right to appoint a local arbitrator who was satisfactory to both parties. The only reason given for adopting this course was that they thought the Board of Agriculture would be more likely to appoint someone who would make the scheme work and value the land lower than a local valuer, The hon. Member opposite was under a delusion in imagining that under the Lords Amendment it would be necessary to have expert witnesses or any other proceedings than those which the Board of Agriculture considered proper. The situation was that they were proposing to take away the right of the parties to appoint a local arbitrator, and they placed the matter entirely in the hands of the Board of Agriculture. In the next place they withdrew the valuation proceedings from the light of publicity, and from all control by those who had a right to see fair play. The Amendment of the Lords in this case was quite appropriate, because there was ample provision in the Bill already for preventing any abuse of this power.
§ MR. WALTERS (Sheffield, Brightside)said that when a landlord was fixing a fresh scale of rents, and his tenants did not see eye to eye with him, they did not set up a court of arbitration or call witnesses. What they did was to call in a valuer who fixed a fair rent. They did not always choose a local valuer, because it was often better to fetch one from a distance. As for the difficulty of getting practical agriculturists to come from a distance to fix a fair value, hon. Members must know that that was 271 a thing which was happening every day. He would like to point out one very obvious reason why a local valuer should not be appointed by agreement between the county council and the landlord. Very often the local valuer had to earn his living in that particular district, and he was constantly called upon to do work for the landlord and the large tenant farmer, and when he was asked to value land, although he might be perfectly honest, he was conscious all the time of his own personal interest in the district. He thought it was only common sense to say that the Board of Agriculture should appoint an outside experienced valuer who would be entirely free from bias and local prejudice.
§ LORD R. CECILthought the speeches of the hon. Member opposite and the Solicitor-General had been delivered under a misapprehension. Legal proceedings were costly if the subject in dispute was valuable. The method of procedure was generally settled in the Court. If the parties had a great interest at stake, whatever proceedings they devised they would fight as hard as they could. If the subject involved was not of much value generally speaking the procedings would not be costly. He was convinced that the Government were attaching a great deal too much importance to the question whether this proceedure should be valuation or arbitration. Arbitration possessed certain obvious advantages, because its procedure was well known to English jurisprudence and was perfectly satisfactory. He was amazed at the Government rejecting the proposal that the parties should be allowed to select their own tribunal. What the proposition
| AYES. | ||
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Ferens, T. R. |
| Alden, Percy | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace |
| Baker, JosephA. (Finsbury, E.) | Cough, William | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Clynes, J. R. | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John |
| Beauchamp, E. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Grant, Corrie |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Cooper, G. J. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Corbett C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Cowan, W. H. | Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton |
| Branch, James | Cremer, Sir William Randal | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis |
| Brodie, H. C. | Crooks, William | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Dobson, Thomas W. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Elibank, Master of | Hazleton, Richard |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Essex, R. W. | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Everett, R. Lacey | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
§ came to was that they were not to have a valuer with any knowledge of the land in the district. It was an obvious advantage to have someone really familiar with the circumstances of the case.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid the Solicitor-General argued this question on the amount of rent to be paid, ignoring all the other matters which were dealt with in this section. He wanted to know on what authority the Solicitor-General stated that it would affect only a few acres of land. In numberless cases, if the Bill met with the success which it was hoped it would have, the county councils would take considerable tracts of land. There was nothing more likely than that a council might take 500 acres at a time. That was what the hon. and learned Gentleman called having an arbitration for a few acres at a time. There might be only a few acres in question when the land came to be let to a smaller tenant, but he maintained that there would probably be a considerable number of cases in which a large acreage would be involved. His hon. and learned friend behind him had pointed out the difference between a valuation on the one hand and an arbitration on the other. It seemed to him that when they had to deal with the large transactions which were certain to arise under this Bill they ought not to be deprived of arbitration, under which both sides of the case could be hoard. There was a special section in the schedule which provided for the cost.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 137; Noes, 39. (Division List No. 466.)
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Marnham, F. J. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Massie, J. | Seely, Colonel |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Masterman, C. F. G. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Hyde, Clarendon | Micklem, Nathaniel | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Montgomery, H. G. | Snowden, P. |
| Jackson, R. S. | Morrell, Philip | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Jowett, F. W. | Murray, James | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Napier, T. B. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Nicholls, George | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Lambert, George | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset. E. |
| Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Toulmin, George |
| Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Nuttall, Harry | Vcrney, F. W. |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton |
| Lough, Thomas | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Lupton, Arnold | Radford, G. H. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Mucdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Rainy, A. Rolland | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Rees, J. D. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Paneras, S.) |
| MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| M'Callum, John M. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Winfrey, R. |
| M'Crae, George | Rogers, P. E. Newman | |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Rowlands, J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Runciman, Walter | |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fell, Arthur | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fletcher, J. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Forster, Henry William | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Gretton, John | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Guinness, Walter Edward | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. VictorC. W. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Valentia, Viscount |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Harrison-Broadley, H. G. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire.) |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham) | Hills, J. W. | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Hunt, Rowland | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S) | TELLERS FOR TUE NOES—Mr. Cave and Mr. Hicks Beach |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 25, line 18, to leave out the word 'value,' and insert the word 'arbitration,'
§ Road a second time and disagreed to.
§
Lords Amendment—
In line 21, to leave out the words 'rating or taxation,' and insert the words 'income-tax the terms and conditions of the hiring,'
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid he proposed to amend the Amendment by leaving out "tonus and conditions of hiring," and deleting the words "income-tax," and adding to it "or rates." He did that because rating was a very fair elemont in calculating rental, and he 274 thought for the present at all events it was better to have both assessments.
§
Amendment to the Lords Amendment proposed—
To leave out the words 'income tax the terms and conditions of hiring,' and insert the words 'or rates.'"—(Mr. Harcourt.)
§ Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§
Lords' Amendment—
In page 25 lines 33 to 40 to leave out paragraph 6.
§ Read a second time.
§ MR. HARCOURTsaid the object of this Amendment did not appear to be quite clear. He therefore proposed to 275 disagree with this Amendment and in place of it to leave out 'require' in line 37 and insert 'reasonably require for purposes of valuation.' "He moved.
§ Lords Amendment disagreed to.
§ Words so restored to the Bill, amended, in page 25, line 37, by leaving out the word "require," and inserting the words "reasonably require for the purposes of valuation,"—(Mr. Harcourt)—)—instead thereof.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 25, line 43, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'in default of agreement.'
§ The next Amendment, agreed to.
§
Lords' Amendment—
in page 26, to leave out line 9.
§ The next Amendment, read a second time, and disagreed to.
§ Remaining Lords' Amendments agreed to.
§ Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.
§ Committee nominated of, Mr. Corrie Grant, Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Solicitor-General and Sir Edward Strachey.
§ Three to be the quorum,
§ To withdraw immediately.—(Mr. Harcourt.)