§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir E. Tennant.)
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)thought they ought to 1261 have some explanation. He did not rise in a hostile spirit to the Bill, but really in ignorance. He thought they had plenty of time to get some explanation from some Member in charge of the Bill as to the general nature of its provisions, and he hoped then he might be able to vote for the Second Reading, but he could not say that at present.
§ SIR E. TENNANT (Salisbury)said the Bill had been printed and had been in the hands of Members for some days, and it had surprised him to know that it was down for that day. That was really the reason why he did not propose to make any further remarks in moving the Second Reading.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that was a very excellent reason from the point of view of the hon. Member, but he was not sure that it was an excellent reason from the point of view of the House. He had been unable to study the provisions of the Bill until that moment. It seemed, looking at the memorandum, that it was not a bad Bill, and he was not at all sure that he would not possibly be found in the same lobby with the hon. Member. But it was due to the House and to hon. Gentlemen opposite to know what the Bill was. The first two lines established the excellence of the Bill, because it adapted to Scottish circumstances the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1907. He did not quite agree with one or two of the other provisions, but they could be altered in Committee. Under these circumstances he hoped the Lord Advocate would advise the House to accept the Bill.
§ THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,) Forfarshiresaid he did not know whether the hon. Baronet who moved this Bill really and seriously asked the House at that period of the afternoon to read it a second time with very little consideration and, as had been pointed 1262 out, without any detailed explanation of its provisions.
§ SIR F. BANBURYMay I point out that we discussed this Bill last year, and therefore there is no necessity to discuss the principle again.
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid the observation of the hon. Baronet was just an illustration of the great difficulty the House must have in discussing this Bill at such short notice. The hon. Baronet took a very active part in Committee and in that House in considering the Government Bill of last year which dealt with this subject, hut if he had had time to compare the Government Bill with the proposal of his hon. friend he would have discovered there was a radical difference not only in the principles of the two Bills, but in the method of treatment. There was a Bill which was complementary to this Bill which dealt with another large branch of the subject. The Government Bill dealt in one scheme with land legislation for the whole of Scotland, but this Bill left entirely out of sight the existing Acts and their administration as dealing with the Highlands of Scotland. The Crofters Act and the large part of Scotland under that Act did not come within the scope of this Bill, neither did the Bill touch that important branch of Scottish administration that came under the supervision of the District Boards. One could hardly realise the importance of this subject to Scotland and the strength of feeling that existed in Scotland on the subject. It was a strange commentary on the criticisms which had been passed on the Government's hurry to legislate—hon. Gentlemen opposite urging the House to pass a Bill of this importance, complexity and scope on a Friday afternoon without having any speech from any supporter of the Bill explaining its provisions.
§ SIR F. BANBURYI beg to move that the question be now put.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThere is still a quarter of an hour.
§ MR. SINCLAIRsaid it was satisfactory to those who had supported the Government that rival Bills formulating definite schemes should have been placed before the House, and it was valuable to the discussion on this question that there should have been placed on the Paper actual proposals which the opponents and critics of the Government's Bill desired to be considered. Nobody could deny that there had been a considerable growth of opinion in regard to this subject since the Government first placed its Bill before the House eighteen months ago. It was satisfactory to Scotsmen that what they had done had not been without benefit to their English colleagues, and that the Government had been able to pass a similar Bill for England. It was the English Bill that had given the hon. Baronet the suggestion which he had embodied in these clauses. He would only make one general remark on the fact that the present Bill followed the English model, and that was that the circumstances of Scotland were so entirely different from those in England that to follow such a course would land then in great difficulties in Scotland. It was entirely unsuitable to Scotland because it left out of sight Scottish circumstances and the present administrative machinery in Scotland. All these considerations made it impossible for the Government to look with favour upon this Bill. Considering the late hour, he could not consent to the Second Reading.
§ *SIR JOHN DEWAR (Inverness)said he had no hesitation in moving that the Bill be read that day six months. He did so for the simple reason that Scotland did not want the Bill. For the last six months nothing had been discussed in Scotland but the land question, and if there was a Bill the Scottish small holders did not want it was the English Bill. 1264 That Bill no doubt suited England, but it would not suit Scotland. To give the county councils control in this matter of small holdings was useless in Scotland. They had already had experience of county councils in that kind of work, and in his constituency they had had a glaring example of the county council's inability to do anything. The county councils were simply no use at all for providing small holdings. Out of 1,300 applications to the Inverness-shire County Council not a single allotment had been made. So far as that part of the Bill was concerned he would be very sorry to see it applied to Scotland. It was impossible for poor men or men without leisure to become members of county councils. In Inverness-shire it took several members the best part of a week to attend a meeting. A member of the county council told him that when he had to attend a meeting he left on Monday morning and did not get back till Friday night, and it cost him £6 or £7. Of the fifty-five members on that county council, no fewer than thirty-four were either landlords, factors, or big farmers, all of whom were opposed to the principle of small holdings.
§ *SIR JOHN DEWARsaid they were elected by the people, but the last thing they were elected for was to look after small holdings. The County Council of Inverness had petitioned against the Government Bill. How many crofters were there on the council? Only one. How could one expect sympathetic treatment of this question from county councils of that composition? The county work was admirably and economically managed by men of business experience, but if a question of this kind was thrown into it they would get men in sympathy with and fit to manage small holdings, but perhaps not otherwise with the leisure and experience necessary for county council 1265 work. They had had au example of that in the last elections. The Sutherland and Caithness Councils had made it a test question, and the great majority of the old councillors had been turned out. The bitterest feeling existed in these counties. The Northern papers were full of it. One landlord was turned out. He wrote not only to the newspapers, but to the county clerk, that under no circumstances would the man who had opposed him be allowed to offer for his contract for wire fencing. Was it desirable that that feeling should be introduced in to all the comity councils? If the work was entrusted to them it would not be county councils of the present complexion who would have to deal with it. Would hon. Members rather have the question considered by county councils chosen in the heat
§ of an election contest or by an impartial tribunal of men specially trained for the purpose who would devote their whole time to it? This Bill was an insult to the crofters. It would result in one man under crofter tenure and his neighbour under the English system, which would lead to confusion and bad feeling.
§ MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)seconded the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Sir John Dewar.)
§ Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 44; Noes, 184. (Division List No. 21.)
1267| AYES. | ||
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Pease, Mr. Herbert (Darlington) |
| Balfour Rt. Hn A. J. (City Lond.) | Dalrymple, Viscount | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool |
| Bull, Sir William James | Fell, Arthur | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Fletcher, J. S. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Gardner, Ernest | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Gave, George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. | Hills, J. W. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunt, Rowland | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore | Kimber, Sir Henry | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Edward Tennant and Sir Frederick Banbury. |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | M'Arthur, Charles | |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Morpeth, Viscount | |
| NOES. | ||
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Cameron, Robert | Dillon, John |
| Astbury, John Meir | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Dobson, Thomas W. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury) | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Donelan, Captain A. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cleland, J. W. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) |
| Beale, W. P. | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) |
| Beaumont, Hon. Hubert | Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Elibank, Master of |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Erskine, David C. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Cox, Harold | Essex, R. W. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Crean, Eugene | Esslemont, George Birnie |
| Boland, John | Cremer, Sir William Rendal | Evans, Sir Samuel T. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Cross, Alexander | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Branch, James | Crossley, William J. | Ferens, T. R. |
| Bright, J. A. | Cullinan, J. | Fienness, Hon. Eustace |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Curran, Peter Francis | Flynn, James Christopher |
| Brodie, H. C. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Dewar, Sir J. A.(Inverness-sh.) | Glendinning, R. G. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N | Gooch, George Peabody |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Rowlands, J. |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | M'Killop, W. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Gulland, John W. | Mallett, Charles E. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Marnham, C. J. | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Halpin, J. | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Schwann, Sir G E.(Manchester) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Masterman, C. F. G. | Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Meagher, Michael | Sears, J. E. |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Menzies, Walter | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Micklem, Nathaniel | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Middlebrook, William | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Mond, A. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Higham, John Sharp | Muldoon, John | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Hodge, John | Murray, James | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Hogan, Michael | Myer, Horatio | Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.) |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Nolan, Joseph | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Toulmin, George |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Vivian, Henry |
| Hyde, Clarendon | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Wadsworth, J. |
| Idris, T. H. W. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Walker H. De. R. (Leicester) |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Connor, T. (Liverpool) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Jenkins, J. | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea | O'Grady, J. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | O'Malley, William | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Joyce, Michael | Phillipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | White Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | White, Luke, (York, E. R.) |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Pirie, Duncan V. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Pollard, Dr. | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Layland-Barratt, Francis | Power, Patrick Joseph | Wiles, Thomas |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Radford, G. H. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Lupton, Arnold | Reddy, M. | Wilson J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Redmond, John E.(Waterford) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S. |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs | Richardson, A. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Mackarness, Frederic G | Ridsdale, E. A. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Maclean, Donald | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | |
| M'Crae, George | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
§ Words added.
§ Second Reading put off for six months.