Commons Sitting of 31 August 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Taff Vale Railway Bill [Lords], changed from "Taff Vale Railway (Cardiff Railway Vesting, etc.) Bill [Lords]."—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Bengal Excise Bill (Select Committee's Report).
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the Report of the Select Committee on The Bengal Excise Bill, 1909; whether representations were made by the Indian members of the Committee in favour of the statutory creation of licensing advisory committees and of the raising of the limit of age for the employment of children on licensed premises; and whether, in view of the appointment of the new Bengal Legislative Council, the Government of India will consider the desirability of obtaining an expression of the views of that body upon the points at issue before the Bill passes into law?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The representations mentioned by my hon. Friend are being fully discussed by the Select Committee and the Legislative Council, and the Secretary of State does not think it advisable to refer these questions back for the consideration of the new Council, with the effect of postponing the enactment of the amended Excise Law.

  Deportations in India (Treatment of Prisoners).
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked whether the provisions of the third section of the Bengal Regulation No. III., of 1818, have been complied with in the cases of the nine British subjects deported in December, 1908, which require that every officer in
  170
  whose custody any State prisoner may be placed shall, on 1st July of each year, submit a report to the Governor-General in Council on the conduct, health, and comfort of such State prisoner in order that the Governor-General in Council may determine whether the orders for his detention shall continue in force or shall be modified; and, if so, would he state what was the nature of the reports, and what was the determination come to by the Governor-General in Council?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: Since replying last week to my hon. Friend the Member for East Leeds, the Secretary of State has received a telegram from the Government of India. The reports submitted show that the health of all the prisoners is satisfactory. All requests for personal interviews with relatives have been granted; books and writing materials have been freely allowed, and every attention is paid to the health and personal comfort of the prisoners. As I stated last week the general considerations guiding the policy of detention under the Regulation are not affected by these reports. That policy is at any moment open to review by the Government, as circumstances may dictate.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: In view of the grave doubts which have been thrown upon the police evidence in many of the recent judgments of the High Court of Calcutta, and especially in the case of Lajpat Rai, do the Government of India not think it necessary to reconsider the evidence upon which these gentlemen were deported?
  The MASTER OF ELIBANK: I went very fully into this matter last week, rather more fully than the question justified, and have nothing to add to the statement I then made on behalf of the Secretary of State.
  Sir HENRY COTTON: Are these prisoners strictly subject to gaol regulations?
  The MASTER OF ELIBANK: I am not able to give the hon. Member any more information than I have received from the Government of India, and which I have stated very fully.
  Mr. J. D. REES: May I ask whether the Government is still of the opinion last expressed in this House by the Prime Minister, to the effect that constant repetition of questions of this character, which have already been answered, tends to encourage

  171
  sedition and hampers the efforts made by the Government of India towards its suppression?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The hon. Member is open to draw his own deductions from the statement made by the Prime Minister.

  Congo (Belgian Colonial Minister's Speech).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received an authentic report of the speech made at Boma, in the Congo, by the Belgian Colonial Minister on 10th May last; whether he has made it the subject of any representations to the Belgian Government in view of its claim that Belgium alone is responsible for the government of the Congo, and of the statement that that government is to be conducted on the lines established by the late Congo Free State; and whether, in view of this speech, His Majesty's Government still proposes to wait until the new year to see what the effect is to be of the visit of the Belgian Colonial Minister to the Congo?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The speech appeared to be of a complimentary nature made at a banquet on the Minister's arrival in the Congo. I do not understand it to be a considered declaration of policy on the part of the Belgian Government; it certainly cannot embody the experience of a tour in the Congo which had not begun when the speech was made, and I do not propose to depart from the decision of His Majesty's Government as already announced to the House.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Has any communication passed between His Majesty's Government and the Belgian Government in reference to this matter?
  Sir E. GREY: Nothing has passed in reference to this matter.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked when further Papers will be laid upon the Table dealing with affairs of the Congo?
  Sir E. GREY: There will be no further Papers of interest to be laid until there has been further correspondence with the Belgian Government consequent upon the return of their Colonial Minister, as con-
  172
  templated in the last Papers laid before Parliament and in my speech on the Foreign Office Vote on July 22nd.

  Anhui Mining Concession (Attitude of Chinese Government).
  Sir GILBERT PARKER (for Mr. Rupert Guinness)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the value of the ore in sight of the Anhui mining concession connected with the London and China Syndicate has been valued at upwards of £836,000 by a competent firm of surveyors; and that the Imperial Chinese Government, having retarded the development of this property, is now offering £50,000 to buy out the concession; and what action His Majesty's Government propose to take, either by suggesting arbitration or by pressing the Chinese Government to fufil its obligations, to ensure that the right of British subjects which have already been acknowledged by His Majesty's Ministers in China shall be duly safeguarded?
  Sir E. GREY: I have been informed by the London and China Syndicate that the ore in sight has been valued at upwards of £836,000, but I am not in a position to say whether this statement is accurate or not. It is the case that the Chinese Government have made an offer of £50,000 to buy out the concession. The matter is now under consideration.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is a question of the exact amount of the value of the ore, or whether it is that the rights of this company are being interfered with by the Chinese Government; and whether he does not consider it the duty of His Majesty's Government to protect the rights of British subjects in China?
  Sir E. GREY: It is not a question of the value of the ore, but of the rights. The rights are not quite so simple as would appear.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much the syndicate has paid for these rights?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir. That is covered by the supplementary answer I have given. The rights, when you go into the whole history of the case, are not quite so simple.
  Sir G. PARKER: May we assume that His Majesty's Government is at present making inquiries for the purpose of protecting the rights of British subjects, if that protection is their due?
  Sir E. GREY: The case has been under consideration for a long time, and, in my opinion, is one that ought to be settled by a compromise, and the negotiations have not yet reached any result.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to inform the House what was the original sum paid by this company for this concession?
  Sir E. GREY: It would not be necessary to go into details of that kind if the matter was settled by agreement.
  Lord BALCARRES: Is it not a fact that this company has already spent more money in developing the estate than the Chinese Government has offered?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not aware that that is a fact, and with regard to the question of rights it must be borne in mind that the Chinese Government have put forward certain contentions on their own side as to whether all the obligations of the company have been fulfilled or not, and that is a matter for discussion.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Who are the directors of this company?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  Portland School, Marylebone.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the transference by the London County Council of the headmaster of the Portland School, Marylebone, to another school in the neighbourhood; whether the County Council attempted to close the Portland school in favour of the other to which the headmaster has been transferred; whether the proposal is now subject to the result of an inquiry promised by the Board of Education; whether, pending that inquiry, the London County Council gave the Board to understand that no change would be made in the Portland School; and whether, as that school has now no head teacher, the Education Department is satisfied that the efficiency of the school is being maintained?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. C. P. Trevelyan):The Board are aware that the headmaster of the Portland School has been transferred to the Barrett-street School. The proposal, which was sub-
  174
  mitted by the London County Council, and which is to be the subject of a Public Inquiry, is not the closure but the reorganisation of the Portland School. Pending the inquiry the Council undertook that the question of reorganisation would be left in abeyance, but they have informed the Board that apart from the reorganisation they desired to transfer the headmaster. This transfer was undoubtedly contemplated in connection with the reorganisation, but I understand that the Council regard it as merely incidental and not essential to it, and as not prejudicing the issue at the Public Inquiry, though it appears to me that their action is in some respects inconvenient. Assuming that a qualified successor is appointed, my right hon. Friend does not think he is in a position to intervene.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Has there been a communication from the London County Council Education Committee about the appointment of a qualified person?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I will inquire into that matter.

  Old Age Pensions (Dundee).
  Mr. JENKINS (on behalf of Mr. Wilkie)asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware of the length of time which has elapsed in the case of a number of claimants for old age pensions in Dundee before the claim has been finally adjusted; and whether he will consider the possibility, in the interests of the claimants, to have all dawns expedited, or where delay is necessary, and through no fault of claimants, that the claim, if allowed, should be paid from the date when the claim has been lodged with the local pension officer?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Owing to pressure of work and the difficulty in obtaining from claimants the necessary evidence of age, etc., there has, I find, been some delay in completing the investigation of certain claims to old age pensions in Dundee. But the hon. Member may rest assured that every effort will be made to ensure the prompt investigation of claims by pension officers. As regards the last part of the question, I may point out that there is no authority under the Act for allowing payment of pension to commence from any earlier date than the first Friday after the claim has been allowed by the Committee.

  Gorleston Murder (Constable Algar's Pension).
  Lord BALCARRES (on behalf of Mr. Claude Hay)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Constable Charles Algar, recently shot at Gorleston whilst on duty, left a widow and children; if so, how many children; what pension will each of his dependents receive; and whether any public subscription has been raised for the benefit of his family?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the HOME OFFICE (Mr. Masterman): I have made inquiry and am informed that the late P.C. Algar left a widow and four children. The widow is entitled to a pension of £15 a year, and £2 10s. for each child until it attains the age of 15. The Mayor of Yarmouth has opened a subscription for the benefit of the widow and children, and, up to the present, about £300 has been subscribed.
  Mr. CROOKS: Can the Government afford it?

  Old War Office Buildings, Pall Mall.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, what annual rental was credited to his Department in respect of the recently demolished buildings in Pall Mall which were hitherto occupied by the War Office?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Some of the buildings referred to were held at one unapportioned rent with other buildings that remain standing. The exact rents received for the demolished buildings cannot therefore be given, but approximately they amounted to about £7,100 per annum.

  Inverliever Property.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the right hon. Gentleman what is the total estimated expenditure during the present financial year on the property of Inverliever; and how many acres of woodland it is proposed to plant?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The total expenditure in connection with the scheme of afforestation at Inverliever is estimated at £2,550 for this year, which includes the cost of planting about 150 acres during the present year.

  Collinstown Post Office.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Postmaster-General whether his further inquiries have satisfied him that the pig-sty at Collins-town is the only available accommodation for His Majesty's post office; whether the increased rent of £8 per annum for two prize cottages conveniently situated in the village was asked by the landlord for the first two years only, in order to cover the extra outlay necessitated by the alterations required by the authorities, amounting to £12, after which the rent was to be £5 10s. per annum; whether, in the interest of everyone concerned, he will reconsider his decision; and whether he can state if the pig-sty has a chimney?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I am satisfied that the newly-appointed sub-postmistress of Collinstown did her best to provide suitable premises for the post office. So far as the temporary office is inconvenient, it is due, as I explained the other day, to the action of the landlord of the district. As regards details, I have nothing to add to what I stated in the House the other day. I do not admit the accuracy of the description either of the present premises or of the cottages belonging to Colonel Smythe.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the landlord of these particular premises in the town also owns the particular pig-sty under discussion?
  Mr. J. MacVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the objection of the hon. and gallant Member is not to the postmaster's pig, but to his politics?
  Mr. BUXTON: The reason why this particular office had to be opened in this particular spot is, as I have fully explained, that the landlord of the other houses declined to give an opportunity to the sub-postmistress. I am informed that these premises are not of the character described, and although they are not as good as I should desire they are the best we could obtain under the circumstances.
  Captain CRAIG: Is it not a fact that the landlord of one set of houses is the same landlord who owns the other set of houses?
  Mr. BUXTON: In this particular case the gentleman who has given the sub-postmistress the offer of these premises is, fortunately, not so much under the control of the landlord as the tenants of the other premises.
  Mr. BELLOC: Surely the Government possess powers of coercion in a case of this kind?
  Mr. BUXTON: No, I think not.

  Dublin Telegraph Office (Junior Superintendent).
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the right hon. Gentleman if he will make inquiries as to whether the junior superintendent in the telegraph office, Dublin, is frequently guilty of discourteous conduct towards the staff; whether he is aware that the staff has complained both verbally and in writing of this officer's conduct; can he say what qualifications, technical or otherwise, did this officer possess when promoted to his present rank; and whether the Controller had occasion in the presence of the staff to censure this officer for his methods of supervision?
  Mr. BUXTON: I can only repeat the answer which I gave to a similar question by my hon. Friend on 26th August, namely, that I have received no complaint on the subject.
  Mr. NANNETTI: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the question on the Paper has not been answered. I asked if the Postmaster-General would make inquiries into the allegations in question.
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not think it is my duty to make inquiries of this kind in reference to matters in regard to which I have received no complaints from the staff through the ordinary channel.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Is it not a fact that the ordinary channel for getting information has been closed in the case of the General Post Office, Dublin?
  Mr. BUXTON: Certainly not. If a member of the staff desires to make the complaint he has a full opportunity of communicating with me personally. Nothing has been done to prevent this, and any member of the staff who has a complaint to make can make it.
  Mr. NANNETTI: As this is a matter of great importance, I wish to know if I am not entitled to a reply to my question? I want to know will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: Until I have a definite complaint, I do not think it is my duty to hold a roving inquiry into allegations which, so far as I am aware, have no foundation in fact.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Has not my hon. Friend made a very definite complaint on behalf of those he represents in Parliament?
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not think so.
  Mr. NANNETTI: As a Member of this House, I claim that when I put a question dealing with a matter of public importance I have a right to receive a courteous reply to the effect that an inquiry will be made into my allegations. I never heard of such a refusal before.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. The answer has been given, and I do not think it is discourteous. The hon. Member has got a full answer.

  Lymph Production.
  Mr. LUPTONasked the President of the Local Government Board if the calves used in the vaccine establishment for the production of lymph are slaughtered shortly after the lymph has been extracted; and if, after such slaughtering, any steps are taken to discover any latent disease that might be in the calf, which latent disease might pass into the lymph undiscovered?
  Mr. BURNS: My hon. Friend asked me a similar question on 22nd June last. As I stated in reply, each calf is slaughtered as soon as practicable after its removal by the owner, and a post-mortem examination is made, at which a veterinary surgeon engaged for the purpose is present. He makes a careful examination of the carcase and of the viscera in order to ascertain whether the calf was in perfect health, and immediately afterwards sends in a certificate as to its healthiness or otherwise.
  Mr. LUPTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the slaughtering of the animals does not prevent the development of signs of disease which might already be in the blood?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question of an argumentative character.

  THE FINANCE BILL.

    VALUATION RETURN.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now give a return specifying the sub-division of the United Kingdom into valuation districts?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend does not at present see his way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

    VALUATION STAFF (SALARIES).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury what will be the respective salaries payable to the various grades of the valuation staff to be established for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not see my way at present to make any statement on the subject referred to.

    LAND CLAUSES.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the right hon. Gentleman how many officials have been already appointed permanently or temporarily for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance Bill?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: None, Sir.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Government property will be valued for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance Bill.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if land used for miniature or long-range rifle ranges will be subject to the Reversion Duty, the Increment Duty, or the Undeveloped Land Duty?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The question whether such land would be subject to any of the duties specified would depend on the facts of the individual cases when duly ascertained.
    Mr. GRETTON: Would land owned by the Government be treated differently from land owned by a private individual?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: In both cases it would depend upon circumstances.

    Old Age Pension Applications (Ireland).
    Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Catherine Moriarty, of Gortatlea, county Kerry, was refused a pension by the Local Government Board as she could not procure a certificate of her age from the parish register or the Census Returns, though the Milltown pension committee allowed the pension on the production of a sworn declaration showing her to be over 70 years; and whether, seeing that there are several such cases in Kerry where no certificate can be obtained, he will direct the Local Government Board to allow the pensions claimed?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. R. R. Cherry): The pension officer appealed against the decision of the local committee allowing this woman a pension on the ground that evidence had not been produced to establish her age. The declaration referred to was made by the claimant's brother, who stated that he was 75 years of age and that his sister was three years younger than he. As, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, this declaration was not substantiated, they allowed the pension officer's appeal. With regard to the last part of the question, the Act requires that in cases of appeal the claimants must satisfy the Board that they have reached the statutory age.
    Mr. J. C. FLYNN: Would not the Local Government Board in this and similar cases consent to receive separate evidence as to age, as is constantly done in this country?
    Mr. CHERRY: Yes, I think so; but they must apparently be satisfied with the evidence. They were not satisfied with the evidence in this case. They are the judges of the evidence.
    Mr. M. JOYCE: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying the declaration was not substantiated? What substantiation could a man of 75 years get of his statement that his sister was three years younger than himself?
    Mr. CHERRY: That is the declaration, and in the opinion of the Local Government Board it was not corroborated by any other circumstances.
    Mr. MURPHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will refer the matter back to the Local Government Board, and point out to them that the man who made the declaration produced a certificate showing he was 75 years of age?
    Mr. CHERRY: I have no power to refer it back.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the pension of Michael Ford, of Moneene-kiene, Drumkeerin, in the Manorhamilton district, was reduced from 5s. to 3s. per week without notice having been served on Ford; whether the appeal was on the ground of age or of means; and whether the Local Government Board have power to deal with cases that are not appealed?
    Mr. CHERRY: I am informed by the Local Government Board that Michael Ford was originally granted a pension of 5s. a week by the pension committee. The pension officer subsequently raised a question as to Ford's right to receive any pension, and notice was duly sent to Ford. The Board ruled against the pension officer on the point he raised as to the pensioner's age, and on consideration of his means awarded him 3s. a week. As regards the last paragraph of the question, the Board know nothing of cases which do not come before them on appeal, but they hold, and have been advised, that when a claim comes before them for determination, either on appeal or question, they are bound to satisfy themselves that all the statutory conditions have been fulfilled, and are not confined to the consideration of the particular point upon which the appeal was submitted. This view has been challenged in the High Court of Justice, and the King's Bench Division being equally divided on the point raised, notice of appeal has been given. Pending the result of the appeal, the Board's procedure holds good.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the pension of Mary M'Manus, of Kilroask and East Bars, in the district of Manorhamilton, was on appeal, on the question of age, reduced from 5s. to 3s. per week; and by what authority was the said reduction made, as there was no appeal on the question of means, she being a poor woman depending solely on her family and friends for a living; and whether the Local Government Board would reconsider her claim?
    Mr. CHERRY: I understand that the facts are as stated. As regards the authority of the Local Government Board to reduce the pension when there was no appeal on the question of means, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to his question as to the case of Michael Ford. The Board have no power to reconsider their decision, but if the applicant can give any new facts or show any alteration in her circumstances it is open to her to make a fresh claim.
    Mr. J. P. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Strokestown, county Roscommon, pensions committee granted a pension of 3s. a week to Patrick Fallon, which, upon appeal by the pension officer to the Local Government Board, was refused on the
    182
    ground that there was no documentary proof of age, as no entry of his name could be found in the Census Returns of 1841 or 1851; whether, in the absence of such entry, other evidence available in the case, satisfactory to the pensions committee has been considered by the Local Government Board; and, if not, whether he will request that Board to consider such evidence?
    Mr. CHERRY: The Local Government Board upheld the pension officer's appeal as they were not satisfied that the claimant had reached the statutory age. Before coming to this decision they carefully considered all the evidence submitted to them. When joining the Teachers' Pension Scheme in 1880, Fallon gave the date of his birth as 5th May, 1840.

    Execution of Madar Lal Dhingra.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that placards have been extensively posted throughout certain parts of Ireland to the effect that Ireland honours Madar Lal Dhingra, who was proud to lay down his life for the cause of his country; and whether the police have discovered the authors of the placards praising a murderer; and, if so, have any arrests been made?
    Mr. CHERRY: I am informed by the police authorities that a number of such placards were found posted in various parts of Ireland, and were at once torn down by the police. The authors have not so far been discovered, nor have any arrests been made.
    Captain CRAIG: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen one of these placards himself?
    Mr. CHERRY: No, Sir, I have not.
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has heard that these placards were posted by the organisation which prints and publishes "Grievances from Ireland"?

    Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
    Mr. W. ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary if he will state the number of evicted tenants or their representatives who have applied to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement in their former holdings on the Kingston and other estates in the neighbourhood of Mitchels-town, and how many still remain unpro-

    183
    vided for; how many uneconomic holdings existed on the Kingston and other estates in the locality sold under the Land Purchase Act of 1903; can he state the number of agricultural labourers without allotments in the neighbourhood of Mitchelstown when these estates were being sold; and whether Mr. Sydney Smith, an inspector from the Estates Commissioners, before allotting a large part of the lands of Kildrum to Thomas Robinson, a wealthy man who had offered £3,000 for the interest in a farm, inquired into and satisfied himself that his scheme for the division of the lands in question had met the claims of evicted tenants, uneconomic holders, and agricultural labourers in the district?
    Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have received applications from 24 persons seeking reinstatement as former tenants or the representatives of former tenants on the Kingston estate. Six of these persons have been reinstated or provided with other holdings. In fifteen cases the Commissioners decided to take no action, and the three remaining applications were not received within the time mentioned in the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907. As regards the case of Mr. Thomas Robinson, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the question asked by the hon. Member on the 23rd instant. The Estates Commissioners are unable to furnish the other particulars asked for in the question.
    Mr. W. ABRAHAM: Am I to understand that it is part of the policy of the Estates Commissioners to give untenanted land to persons in possession of means?
    Mr. CHERRY: I do not think so, except in very exceptional circumstances. I think there were exceptional circumstances in this case.
    Mr. W. ABRAHAM: Could the right hon. Gentleman state what the exceptional circumstances are?
    Mr. CHERRY: I could not at the moment; perhaps the hon. Member will kindly put down another question.
    Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary what is the cause of the delay on the part of the Estates Commissioners in completing the reinstatement of Mr. Daniel O'Donoghue, of Ballycasheen, near Killarney, evicted tenant; whether Mr. D. C. Coltsmann, J.P., D.L., who is in occupation of the lands, has offered to
    184
    facilitate the Commissioners in every way to carry out the reinstatement; and whether many more years will have to elapse before it is effected?
    Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners are not prepared to pay the amount of compensation required by the present occupier of the farm in question. They have noted O'Donoghue's application for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land.
    Mr. MURPHY: Having regard to the fact that the landlord has offered to facilitate the reinstatement of his tenant, will the right hon. Gentleman direct the Estates Commissioners to do something for one of the evicted tenants in Kerry?
    Mr. CHERRY: I would not like to interfere with the Estates Commissioners in this duty at all. I think it would be rather inconvenient if the Government were to say what evicted tenants should be reinstated.

    Orange Order of Black Men, Portadown.
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state how many extra police were drafted into Portadown on the occasion of the demonstration of the Orange Order of Black Men on Saturday, the 28th instant?
    Mr. CHERRY: On the 17th instant 200 police from other counties were drafted into Portadown in connection with the disturbances there. This force was retained for duty on Saturday, the 28th instant, but happily there was no disorder whatever on that date, owing largely to the willing assistance given to the authorities by the leaders of both parties.
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh (Mr. W. Moore) delivered a speech at a meeting of Black Men on Saturday?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.
    Captain CRAIG: Is it not a fact that on the date mentioned about 5,000 or 6,000 Protestants gathered together and there was not the slightest disturbance, and also that on 12th July there were 30,000 in the neighbourhood without the slightest disturbance?
    Mr. CHERRY: I cannot answer as to the number, but I have already said there was no disturbance.

    Captain F. G. Burke s Estate, Loughrea.
    Mr. W. J. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have purchased the estate of Captain F. G. Burke and others, Ballydugan, Loughrea, and that there are holdings on the estate exceedingly small in acreage; and whether, seeing that the tenants have frequently asked the Commissioners, within the course of the past few years, to deal with the estate so as to afford them some chance of living, and having regard to the unfortunate state of the district, he will urge upon the Commissioners to deal with this estate at once?
    Mr. CHERRY: Proceedings have been instituted for the sale of this estate under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and it will be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners in its order of priority.

    King's Own Malta Militia (Colour-Sergeant Giuseppe Cachia).
    Mr. P. CURRANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Giuseppe Cachia, who was a colour-sergeant in the King's Own Malta Militia, was at the expiration of seven years' service transferred against his wish into the Reserve; that Cachia had nothing against his conduct and holds certificates for efficiency; that his repeated requests for a statement of the reasons for his transfer have been met with refusals; and that the circumstances of his transfer have cast a reflection on him and he has suffered in consequence; and whether he will favourably consider the possibility of Cachia's re-entry into the Militia or state the reasons why he was transferred into the Reserve?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. F. D. Acland): This case has already been referred to the War Office. The man's commanding officer considered that his performance of the duties of colour-sergeant were not sufficiently satisfactory to justify his retention, and this decision was upheld by the superior military authorities purely on military grounds and not on grounds of character or conduct. It must be remembered that as the Malta Militia do not draw their permanent staff from the Regular forces, exceptional local men are required, and the refusal to grant him an extension did not cast any reflection on this man. He has now completed his 12 years' engagement, and could not be readmitted into the force.

    Territorial Force (Trenching Picks and Shovels).
    Mr. J. GRETTONasked if there is a supply of trenching picks and shovels in store sufficient for equipping the Territorial Forces on mobilisation with the number laid down in equipment regulations; and, if not, whether it is proposed to make up the deficiency without delay?
    Mr. ACLAND: The peace equipment of every infantry battalion of the Territorial Force includes six picks and six shovels per company, or 48 of each per battalion. These tools form part of the war equipment of the units, and are kept in store. Additional tools are to be provided by county associations on mobilisation.

    Select Committee of Privileges.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Prime Minister when it is expected that the Select Committee of Privileges will issue a Report to the House?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease):The Prime Minister has asked me to say that he is not in a position at the present moment to make any statement.

    Horse Breeding in Ireland.
    Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the Board of Agriculture or the Department appointed the inspectors of mares to receive nominations for the present season; and will he state the number of such inspectors, their names, and full addresses, their qualifications, and what practical experience they had of either race or draught mares?
    The VICE-PRESIDENT Of the DEPARTMENT Of AGRICULTURE (IRE LAND) (Mr. T. W. Russell): The Department appoint the judges and veterinary surgeons who select the mares for nominations under the Department's scheme for encouraging improvement in the breeds of horses. Twenty-eight judges and 24 veterinary surgeons were employed by the Department in connection with the selection of mares during the season 1909. Before making the appointments the Department satisfied themselves that the gentlemen in question were fully competent for the work to be done. I shall be glad to-investigate and deal with any complaint that may be made to the Department.

    MAGISTEATES (IRELAND).
    Return ordered "of the names; addresses, and occupations or descriptions of the persons appointed to the Commission of the Peace in Ireland since the preparation of the last Return, giving for each county and borough a summary of religions of those so appointed, a summary of religions of all now holding the Commission of the Peace in each county and borough, and the numbers of each religious denomination in the different counties and boroughs according to the last census (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 153, of Session 1908)."—[Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh.]
    BILLS PRESENTED.
    The following Bills were presented, and read the first time:—
    HEALTH RESORTS (IRELAND).
    Bill to empower local authorities in Ireland to strike a rate to defray the cost of advertising local health resorts.—[Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh.]
    COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION (IRELAND).
    Bill to extend the jurisdiction of county courts in Ireland.—[Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh.]

    HOSPITALS.
    Bill to empower local authorities to strike a rate in aid of local hospitals.—[Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh.]
    (To be read a second time upon Monday next, 6th September.)

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC, BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[2nd Allotted Day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC, BILL.
  PART II.—TOWN PLANNING.

    CLAUSE 53.—(Preparation and Approval of Town Planning Scheme.)
    (1) A town planning scheme may be made in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act as respects any land which is in course of development or appears likely to be used for building purposes, with the general object of securing proper sanitary conditions, amenity, and convenience in connection with the laying out and use of the land, and of any neighbouring lands.
    (2) The Local Government Board may authorise a local authority within the meaning of this Part of this Act to prepare such a town planning scheme with reference to any land within or in the neighbourhood of their area, if the authority satisfy the Board that there is aprimâfacie case for making such a scheme, or may authorise a local authority to adopt, with or without any modifications, any such scheme proposed by all or any of the owners of any land with respect to which the local authority might themselves have been authorised to prepare a scheme.
    (3) Where it is made to appear to the Local Government Board that a piece of land already built upon, or a piece of land not likely to be used for building purposes, is so situated with respect to any land likely to be used for building purposes that it ought to lie included in any town planning scheme made with respect to the last-mentioned land, the Board may authorise the preparation or adoption of a scheme including such piece of land as aforesaid, and providing for the demolition or alteration of any buildings thereon so far as may be necessary for carrying the scheme into effect.
    (4) A town planning scheme prepared or adopted by a local authority shall not have effect unless it is approved by the Local Government Board, and the Board may refuse to approve any scheme except with such modifications and subject to such conditions as they think fit to impose.
    (5) A town planning scheme, when approved by the Local Government Board, shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act.
    (6) A town planning scheme may be varied or revoked by a subsequent scheme prepared or adopted and approved in accordance with this Part of this Act, and the Local Government Board on the application of the responsible authority, or of any other person appearing to them to be interested, may by order revoke a town planning scheme if they think that under the special circumstances of the case the scheme should be so revoked.
    (7) The expression land likely to be used for building purposes shall include any land likely to be used as, or for the purpose of providing open spaces, roads, streets, parks, pleasure or recreation grounds, or for the purpose of executing any work upon or under the land incidental to a town planning scheme, whether in the nature of a building work or not, and the decision of the Local Government

    189
    Board, whether land is likely to be used for building purposes or not, shall be final.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) is not in the right place; that in the name of the hon. Member for North Hackney (Mr. Hart-Davies) should come on Sub-section (2).
    Mr. CLELANDmoved to leave out from Section (2) the words "The Local Government Board may authorise."
    This Sub-section provides that a local authority in England or Scotland shall ask the leave of the Local Government Board to prepare a town planning scheme. In the ease of a private donor or a syndicate it would not be necessary to obtain such permission, and it seems to me there is nothing to justify this anomalous, treatment of municipal corporations. I do not seek to take out of the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board the right to veto, alter, or make changes in any town planning scheme prepared by a corporation, but I do submit it is a waste of time and rather a circuitous method of procedure that the local authorities should be required to get this permission before being even permitted to prepare a scheme. In the case of Scotland the objection is still stronger, seeing that the Local Government Board in Edinburgh has so far had nothing to do with housing and town planning, and, therefore, possesses no practical knowledge of details.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): I trust that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. It is quite true that if the Clause is passed as it stands, the Local Government Board will have in the matter of town planning schemes no control over private owners. But for some years the Local Government Board, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, has had some control over local authorities in the matter of sanctioning loans and auditing accounts, and this power has been exercised with beneficial effects to the general community. The Local Government Board has also helped local authorities by promoting Provisional Orders and Bills for schemes approximating to town planning and improvement schemes. Its inspectors have likewise conducted public inquiries into these schemes. We think that in these cases the local authority ought not to promote
    190
    schemes without first acquainting the central authority of the nature of their proposals, inasmuch as a scheme may impinge upon the areas of two or three other local authorities or interfere seriously with the rights of the neighbourhood. It would be only fair to adjoining owners that someone should intervene to ensure there was a definite beginning of any scheme formulated, and this is all the more important because when a town planning scheme is promoted it is provided, under Clause 57, Subsection (2), that "A person shall not be entitled to claim compensation under this section on account of any building erected on or contract made, or other thing done with respect to land included in a scheme, after the time at which the application for authority to prepare the scheme was made, or after such other time as the Local Government Board may fix for the purpose." In connection with these schemes it is necessary, therefore, for some central authority to determine the method of procedure, and the date at which compensation shall begin, and after which it shall not be paid. In the Committee upstairs we were all agreed that for some time to come the central authority— the Local Government Board—should initiate the proceedings, but that will not prevent any local authority making its preliminary investigations and inquiries. It can make all its preparations in advance, and arrange with rival and contending interests. We think this is a very serious experiment, which has to be watched very carefully at the start, when, naturally, we shall have to have the advice and guidance of a very limited number of experts. I would, therefore, appeal to my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, but to rest assured that all the local authorities concerned will not be deprived of all legitimate opportunities for giving preparation to a scheme which they think they ought to start at once.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I am glad that at last there is a sound of revolt from the Government Benches against the proposal that the President of the Local Government Board is to be converted into an ancient Sultan of Turkey, with powers of life and death, over all people who are living at the present moment, or likely to live in the future, in England, Scotland, or Wales. I would suggest, however, to-the hon. Member that he has not chosen a good moment in which to raise the-

    191
    protest, because, so far as I can judge, the effect of leaving out these words would be absolutely futile, as all that would happen if the words are left in would be that the local authority might prepare themselves a town planning scheme if they satisfied the Board that there is aprimâfacie case.
    Mr. CLELAND: If the hon. Baronet will look at the Amendments he will see that I. have one which is consequential, to leave out the words, "if the authority satisfy the Board that there is aprimâfacie case for making such a scheme."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I did not notice that Amendment on the Paper, and it does alter the case very much, and I am afraid then the present Amendment goes too far. I agree with the President of the Local Government Board that this is a very serious experiment, and unless we watch it carefully we are going to put a great burden upon owners and local authorities, and I am sorry he has undertaken these duties very light-heartedly; but I am not at all sure that I would not prefer the action of the Sultan of Turkey to leaving it entirely to the local authority to interfere with other people's property.
    Mr. CLELAND: The only effect of my Amendment would be to allow the local authority to do what you allow the private owner to do—namely, to prepare a scheme.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then I come back to my original point that the omission of these words does not matter; whether they are in or out the local authority will have to go to the person representing for the time being the Sultan in the Arabian Nights, and exercising power over his fellow subjects, and obtain his permission. Therefore, I do not think there is very much in the Amendment, and under these circumstances, I think my right hon. Friend is right in asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment, but as the hon. Gentleman seems rather animated by a desire to exercise his influence against the schemes of the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps on another occasion when there is an Amendment, which will serve a more useful purpose, I may have his support.
    Mr. CLELAND: I do not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY (in the absence of Mr. M'Arthur)moved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "land"' ["with reference to any land"], to insert the words "other than land acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking."
    Mr. JOHN WARD: On a point of Order. I would ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether we did not decide this yesterday?
    The CHAIRMAN: That was not in connection with town planning, but in connection with another question altogether, that of housing.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There are two points raised by the Bill; that which we decided yesterday, and I am sorry we did so decide, was a question of housing, and this has to do with town planning. The question raised by the Amendment is whether, when there is a large scheme of town planning to be carried out, land acquired under statute for the purpose of a railway, dock, canal, water or other public undertaking shall not be held to be exempt from the scheme. It must not be forgotten that where a large scheme of town planning is carried out it will be most necessary that there should be communication close to that scheme, and therefore everything should be done to encourage railways and canals and other undertakings of that sort, and not to discourage them by using their land for the purpose of the town planning scheme. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman gave as a reason for rejecting a similar Amendment that there was a certain amount of surplus land belonging to railways which had been acquired by the railway companies but was not used for railway purposes, and he seemed to think it was not right that the surplus land should be held up and acquired for other purposes; but I would point out to him, if there is going to be a large scheme of town planning, that will mean additional work for the railways, and consequently the surplus land of the railways will be required in order to provide enlarged accommodation. Suppose there has been a small village or town, and the population has been increased by the town planning, then the railway accommodation will not be sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman is in error in supposing that the acquisition of surplus land by railways is for the purpose of holding it up, or any ill-natured purpose of that sort.
    Mr. BURNS: I did not suggest it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The real reason that the surplus land is bought by the railway company is because they think that in the future, in the district in which they acquire this land, they will eventually have to use the land for the purpose of railway extension. And when they have an opportunity of buying the land at a reasonable price, though they may not require it at the moment, it is always advisable so to do, because it they wait until it is perfectly well known in the neighbourhood that they must acquire the land they will have to pay a very much larger price than if they acquire it at the time they do not actually desire to use it.
    There is another point to be considered, and that is, that if the railway companies are not allowed to hold a certain amount of land in neighbourhoods where they think perhaps their business will increase, that land probably will be built upon or used for other purposes, and when they want to acquire it they have to demolish the houses, and that will cause a certain amount of hardship on the people who are dispossessed without compensation. Then this land cannot be acquired by any of the companies or corporations mentioned in the Amendment unless they have the sanction of both Houses of Parliament. Even the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) two days ago. in the discussion upon the Irish Land Bill, hoped that where land had been acquired by tenants under the Statute it would be exempted from the operations of the compulsory clauses. Where an advanced social reformer—if that is an appropriate description of people who are anxious to acquire other people's property—like the hon. Member advances a claim with regard to property the right hon. Gentleman might consider that there is something in it. I understand this exemption has been given to railway companies, canal companies, and others by the Public Health Act Amendment Act, 1907, Section (38) and also by the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, Subsection (1) of Section 30, and the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1908, Section 41. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman held up for our approbation the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1907, and he advanced as an argument for doing certain things under this Bill that that had been done in the Act of 1907. He argued that because it was done in the Act of 1907 it was necessarily good, and it ought to be done in this Bill. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. There are provisions in the Act—which he
    194
    says is such a good one, and on which apparently he has founded, so far as regards Land Clauses procedure, the procedure under his Bill—which justify the Amendment which I am moving. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember his utterances of yesterday and will be consistent, at any rate, in this one particular.
    Mr. BURNS: Practically this point was discussed at considerable length yesterday on several Amendments. By a decisive majority yesterday the House decided that for housing purposes land should be compulsorily acquired. If it is necessary for housing, where land is diverted entirely from the railway company, surely this procedure is doubly necessary for town planning where, in 19 cases out of 20, land will not be diverted from the railway company to the local authority for the purpose of a town planning scheme in the sense that ownership by the railway company will terminate and it will be vested in the local authority or in exchange with other private owners. On the contrary, it was generally agreed in the Grand Committee chat in all matters of town planning where both the actual railway and the stations and the depots or the surplus land of the railway comes within a town planning scheme, it would come less for expropriation than for a re-arrangement and for inclusion within the purview of the -scheme, not with the object of inflicting any injustice on the railway company or depriving them of their property, but by the development of the township the railway would be considerably benefited—by the widening of roads, the grading of roads, and the general improvement of the area. Let me give a practical instance. The Garden City Company at Letchworth was started some six or seven years ago, and came to me about four years ago to discuss certain proposals for the improvement of their estate. One of the questions was what should be the relationship of the railway to the Garden City. They had previously determined, roughly, that the Garden City, in relation to the railway close by, should have certain lands abutting on the railway where, for many years to come, houses would not be built, and the railway company had in that case what in too many cases railway companies, for lack of foresight, have had to do in London and the suburbs, to pull down houses that abutted on the narrow strip which they ought to have had wider. The Garden City people sensibly went

    195
    to the railway company, who said if the Garden City is to grow to ten, twenty, or fifty thousand, ten or 20 years hence, the railway should go to a certain spot, a certain amount of surplus land on either side wide enough for all probable developments should be acquired, and the depots should be so and so, and the bridges should be so and so. I found the railway company exploiting me. They said, "We have agreed with the Garden City. We have fixed up terms without any counsel and without expert witnesses, but by the common-sense of a conference." I had money to spend on the unemployed. I was allowed to take two or three hundred men to the Garden City for the improvement of the approaches. The Garden City was benefited, the railway was not damnified, and the unemployed got work, and by the concatenation of circumstances and by common-sense all round we produced this small town planning scheme. In 19 out of 20 cases that is what would happen under this Bill, and I would appeal to the hon. Baronet not to do injustice to his clients, the railway companies, by insisting on this rather absurd proposal.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman approved of the action of this particular railway company?
    Mr. BURNS: Barkis being willing, I was happy to assist in this friendly function.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I asked the question because it is a railway company of which I am a director. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman approved of the proceedings of the railway company. My version of the story is not quite the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman. Unless I misunderstood him the point of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Garden City people came to the railway company and requested them to make a station, and that they offered land on both sides for development. Then there was some question as to a gradient, and the right hon. Gentleman having gone down and assisted both sides, a charming and beautiful result arose. That is not quite the story I heard in the board room.
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Baronet must not be guided by all he hears in a board room. I went out to the place five or six times, and had the matter all out with the surveyor.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not casting any doubt on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman so far as he is concerned. I am casting doubt on the action of the Garden City. What really took place there was what might take place in other quarters unless this Amendment is accepted. What took place was this. The Great Northern Railway Company put up a station the moment they heard that the Garden City was likely to build houses at that particular part; they stopped trains, and did everything they could to encourage the development of traffic—not from philanthropic, but from business motives. The railway company asked some land from the Garden City. The Garden City people asked three or four times more for the land then they gave for it. They knew that their scheme, if not a success, was progressing, and they knew that the railway company in order to do their duty were obliged to have land. They took advantage of that, and demanded an extraordinary price for the land. What the price eventually was I do not remember, but we made the best bargain we could. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is a strong argument in favour of my Amendment, and I hope, now that he has heard the other side of the story, he will accept it.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: As a matter of principle, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is wrong to supersede —by the action of a Department—the deliberate decision of Parliament. It was pointed out yesterday that when railway, dock, and other companies get powers from Parliament to acquire land for the prosecution of public objects, it ought not to be left to a Department to say that these public objects have ceased or that other public objects which supersede them or which are greater, have arisen. If the present President of the Local Government Board were to be at his office in perpetuity, I dare say I should not very much object to this particular Clause. I think no town planning authority would really be so mad as to take lands which were necessary for the purposes of a railway company. I am perfectly certain that in 99 out of 100 cases no attempt would be made by any sagacious town planning committee to obtain land from a railway company unless that land was more or less superfluous to the railway company. I did not discover in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman any reason at all against the principle of my hon. Friend's Amend-

    197
    ment. It is that powers from this House in some form or another should be obtained in order to divest railway companies of lands with which they have been entrusted by Parliament for public purposes.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I understand that it was decided yesterday that surplus lands belonging to railway companies and other corporations might be taken for the building of houses. To-day we are discussing whether a municipal or other local authority shall have power to sketch out the way in which they intend development to take place on land which is now vacant. It is not intended to rip up a railway, possibly a trunk line, for the purpose of building houses. I take it for granted that what is intended, after all, is that lands not otherwise used by a railway company should be taken if good reason can be shown for doing so. No one would suggest the pulling up of the sidings of a railway company, or the carrying out of schemes which would involve a stupid waste of energy and money. That I understand to be the position, and therefore no injury will be done to railway companies or any of the other corporations which have been mentioned.
    4.0 P.M.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): May I draw attention to a Sub-section which I think ought to allay the apprehension of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury). Sub-section (1) of Clause 53, which governs the whole of this part of the Bill, says: "A town planning scheme may be made in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act as respects any land which is in course of development or appears likely to be used for building purposes, with the general object of securing proper sanitary conditions, amenity, and convenience in connection with the laying out and use of the land, and of any neighbouring lands." That, of course, is a very effective and important direction to the various authorities who will be concerned in the preparation of the scheme. For instance, the local authority who will first consider the scheme—what is generally called the responsible authority—will have to prepare the scheme in accordance with the spirit of the Sub-section, and the scheme will remain before the Local Government Board, who equally will construe it and mould it or mend it in accordance with the effect of the Sub-section. Land which is close to a railway, and is really wanted for its purposes, will not
    198
    become surplus land. Land of that kind can scarcely be described as land which is in course of development, or is likely to be used for building purposes, and although it may come within the scope of a general scheme, and I think very properly come within the scope of a general scheme which deals with the laying out of the whole district, yet is land which any local authority, and certainly the Local Government Board, would carefully protect in giving assent to a scheme. In giving assent to a scheme they would see that land of that kind is not in the same position as land which is obviously in process of development, and likely to be used for building purposes, and therefore such land would be specially provided for. I think that anyone who reads the Bill as a whole would not apprehend any serious danger to such land. Of course, there are cases where the land has become surplus land, where is was originally intended for the purposes of the railway, and the railway men changed their intention and left the land surplus land. In that case representations could be put before the town planning authorities as a matter of right. If the land is still wanted for the purposes of the railway it should be specially dealt with. If it is not wanted for the purpose of the railway, but may be so wanted, still special provisions would undoubtedly be made to safeguard any future necessity that the railway might contemplate in relation to that land. But I can scarcely imagine that any local authority reading the Sub-section referred to would, nevertheless, proceed to deal with the land adjacent to a railway acquired by the railway for railway purposes as though it were ordinary building land on which they would be prepared to erect, workmen's cottages.
    Viscount MORPETH: Surplus land has been alluded to by the learned Attorney-General. As far as I can see, there is no mention of surplus land either in the Bill or in the Amendment. Although, of course, it is not very probable that a town council would take the actual track of the railway it conceivably might happen. Conceivably they might say to the railway, "You must divert your railway." Indeed, one can conceive this happening under the Town Planning Clauses, that if there was a town planning scheme for London, the London County Coucil might say to the South-Eastern Company, "Hungerford Bridge is the greatest eyesore in London. You must convert it into a stone bridge." I do not

    199
    suggest that is very probable, but it is possible, and I think that the Bill ought to provide for what is possible as well as for what is probable. I think that the Attorney-General does not quite realise that one of the objections we feel under this Clause is that you are taking from corporate bodies land which they have received in accordance with Acts of Parliament, and for which they have probably paid very heavily before the Committees here, and that you are taking it by the mere administrative action of the municipality and the Local Government Board. This kind of case may arise in the future. At present the Government is proposing to drive roads through England, with 220 yards of surplus land on each side—
    Mr. BURNS: No; the total width is 220 yards.
    Viscount MORPETH: That does not affect my argument at all. In any case, there is 110 yards on either side of the tract of land deliberately intended by this House to be surplus land. This question then arises: What is to be the relationship of the Local Government Board and of the Town Planning Authorities, and of the new Road Board as to the surplus of land? Will the former bodies be able to give directions and able to override an Act passed by this House saying that these roads shall be made and that the surplus land shall be left? A very dangerous principle to introduce into an office or into administration would be to enable them to override deliberately the express intention of Parliament, and although I do not think it very probable that anything very foolish will be done in the direction of railway tracks being broken up, yet I think the duty arises to safeguard those who have received a Parliamentary title.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: The Attorney-General (Sir W. Robson), as I understood him, said that it was very undesirable that railway companies should by any possibility be cramped in any future development in the course of their business. He added that there was no possibility of that taking place, as they were fully protected by Sub-section (1) of Clause 53. I have no doubt that it is perfectly plain to his legal mind, but it is not clear to the lay mind. Would he therefore undertake on behalf of the Government to put down an Amendment on the Report stage to make clear in this Sub-section what is obviously the intention of the Government?
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and learned Member (Sir W. Robson) really agrees with me in everything I have said. When he said that my Amendment was not necessary because of Sub-section (1) of Clause 53 I venture to say that that Sub-section makes my Amendment more than ever necessary, because the question of development would arise, and if the land was ripe for development it would be taken. Therefore the Sub-section gives no protection whatever. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that the Local Government Board would do so-and-so. How does he know what the Local Government Board are going to do? There is not a single person in this House who has any idea of what the Local Government Board in future will or will not do. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is no use saying in this House or in this Committee that the effect of a clause or an Amendment will be to have such-and-such things. The effect will be what the Law Courts choose to interpret it later on, and we shall not be able to bring forward evidence, because I understand that no expert evidence or counsel will be allowed. But even if we could bring forward evidence, no evidence that the right hon. Gentleman said so-and-so or that the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) said so-and-so would have the slightest weight when the Clause has to be considered either in a court of law or by the Local Government Board. If the hon. and learned Gentleman really thinks that certain safeguards should be put in, those safeguards should be put in in Committee. The hon. Member for Stoke says that railway companies and other companies of this description need not be alarmed, because, he says, a local authority would not dream of pulling up the tracks. How does he know what they would or would not do? Then he says that if you prove to them that the land was required for the development of the railway they would not take it. Why not put all that into the Bill? If the right hon. Gentleman will put the words of the hon. Member for Stoke and the words of the Attorney-General into the Bill I should have nothing to say, because then it would be apparent what the wishes of the Government arc. But I am not satisfied as to the intention either of the Attorney-General or the Member for Stoke or of the Local Government Board in the future, or as to what the 600 or 700 local authorities in the future will do. In this Clause we are

    201
    giving very wide authority to local authorities—in my opinion very much too wide— but, at any rate, the desire of the Committee as expressed by two hon. Members of the opposite way of thinking to myself is that the Clause should have the effect they think it ought to have, and if that be so why not put in words with that object?
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is a suggestion which I think would meet the practical difficulty in this case. You are dealing with the land—not surplus land —of some people to whom Parliament has given the right to use that land. You are empowering under this Bill an Executive Department of the Government to modify the statute which has been enacted by this House. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Burns) is going to meet that problem by an Amendment which he proposes to move later on, that where land held under any public general Act is interfered with the Order for its acquisition is to lie on the Table of this House for 40 days, and an address may be presented against it. It would meet that case if the right hon. Gentleman would only follow his own precedent, and would not confine the application of this Order to cases of a public or a general Act, but would make it apply to all cases of statutory enactment where land affected has been acquired by authority of this House. Then we should ensure that the authority which has been entrusted with land by this House would not be interfered with without this House having at least an opportunity of signifying its assent or dissent.
    Mr. A. LUPTON: It seems to me that this Clause is proposing that a certain plan should be made under which certain proposals of the local authority approved of by the Local Government are put down on paper. There are to be roads there, canals there, railways somewhere else, tramways on this plot, and parks here; and as I understand the Amendment it would mean that certain parts are to be left blank, because the railway has been authorised by Act of Parliament to acquire certain land. Surely the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) does not suppose that any town council would propose to erect a cottage on a railway, but what it might propose is to have cottages near the railway. You can build much more economically where you have a railway to bring the building materials as near as possible to the spot.
    Mr. J. A. BRIGHT: I would like to point out to my right hon. Friend that the land which is possessed by railway companies has often been bought at a very much higher price than really ought to have been paid, and I would ask him whether land really required for the purposes of extension for the laying down of sidings or the erection of warehouses, and which has been preserved for those purposes is not in any way to be applied to the purposes of public authorities. If under the Bill it can be shown that there are really surplus lands which might come under the purview of this Clause, excluding such as really have been bought for the purpose of extensions, I think that would meet the difficulty. I suggest that there should be inserted in the Amendment the words, "not being surplus land."
    Mr. BURNS: I have been appealed to by my hon. Friend behind me and hon. Members opposite to make a further concession beyond that which I have already indicated our willingness to make, and which is shown on page 24 of the White Paper, already referred to by the hon. Member for one of the Lanark divisions (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson). Beyond that Amendment it is impossible for the Government to go, and in this connection I see no reason why the Government should be pressed. I think the fears of the railway representatives who have spoken to-day are as groundless almost as those of some of their ducal competitors on another subject elsewhere. I would advise the railway representatives to remember this: Under a town planning scheme it is just of as much advantage to the railway company to act in harmony with the local authority for the future development of their organisation and of their railway property in the particular area affected as it is for them, when Parliament gives the local authorities power to acquire land for housing, not to be excluded from the general law. If hon. Members who represent the railway interests are not content with the concession we make, it is impossible for us to go further and to comply with their real requirements, namely, that all land owned by the railway companies, whether surplus or otherwise, shall be ruled to be without the purview of a town planning scheme. That cannot be done, and ought not to be done, if the essentials of a town planning scheme are to be kept in view.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I protest against the speech which we have just heard from

    203
    the right hon. Gentleman. I object to any hon. Members in this House who get up to speak being referred to as "railway representatives." I myself have no connection with any railway.
    Mr. BURNS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has rather misconstrued my observation. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, with a frankness and a directness that always do him credit, said he represented the interests of the railway companies, and it was only in that general sense I replied. My reply was direct and courteous, and was not intended to convey what the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies, that I made a distinction in regard to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London as representing railways only. On the contrary, the hon. Baronet made his position perfectly clear, and I, as representing the public as distinct from the railway companies, had the right to reply to him, as I did, and I hope I courteously expressed my reasons.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: The right hon. Gentleman was very unfortunate in expressing himself in the matter.
    Mr. BURNS: It is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: This is a question which does not merely affect railway companies. There are public bodies, such as dock companies, water companies, canal companies, and other statutory companies, who are also affected, as the right hon. Gentleman must be aware. It is the public case we seek to meet. The President of the Local Government Board is really under a complete illusion if he supposes that he has made any concession whatever by the Amendment which he has placed upon the Paper: "Provided that where the scheme contains provisions suspending any enactment contained in a public general Act the scheme shall not come into force unless a draft thereof has been laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than forty days during the Session of Parliament, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those forty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the proposed suspension no further proceedings shall be taken on the draft without prejudice to the making of any new scheme." My hon. Friend behind me most properly referred to it as showing that the Government are not acting in ignorance on this matter, because by the Amendment to which reference has been
    204
    made they say that, when a public Act is likely to be contravened by this Section, some provision should be made by which that Act should be in no way interfered with without the intervention of this House. I submit that this shows that the House, and the House alone, ought to deal with that which has been created by its own authority. There is not the slightest objection, and no pretence of an argument has been raised at all, to show that a private Act of Parliament, which is often very much more expensive and very much more considered than a public Act, should not have the same provision applied to it. With reference to what was said by the Attorney-General, I happen to have a practical knowledge of the matter which possibly he does not possess. He imagines that in the case of a town planning community there will be no temptation on the part of the local authority to do anything hostile to a railway company. In the instance I have before my mind the railway company has at immense expense constructed a line at Hampstead. They have a very considerable quantity of land on which they intend in future to place goods-yards, warehouses and other erections. At Hampstead they have the enormous advantage of the connection which the railway gives with London, and it would be exceedingly desirable if the lands which are adjacent to the railway and are destined for future accommodation could be acquired. Under this Section that would be precisely the case where there would be the greatest temptation to a local authority to round off its town planning scheme at the expense of the railway company. The Attorney-General suggests that the local authority are quite incapable of such action, but that is not my experience.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I think there is a difference, which the right hon. Gentleman will himself see, between the case of the Garden Cities Association, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member, and the case of the local authority, who would come under the supervision of the Government Department. In the former case, there is an element of private interest; I do not use the word in any invidious sense; but the interests of the Garden Cities Association would be under very different control, because it is a separate and private association as compared with the local authority.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I cannot agree with my hon. and learned Friend, I think the

    205
    temptation would be equal in both cases. It is clearly reasonable that the powers which have been entrusted to the railway company to acquire land, which it occupies by virtue of its Parliamentary powers, should not be exposed to the interference of the local authority without being subject to the authority of Parliament, which originally granted those powers to the railway company.
    Mr. E. B. BARNARD: I should very much like if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would make his position a little clearer than it is, and if he could restrict the matter to surplus land it would be a source of considerable comfort to many people other than railway directors. My experience in regard to this question has nothing to do with railways, and I approach it from a totally different standpoint. Those who advise me consider that the matter is not nearly so clear as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and the Attorney-General seem to think. If it could be arranged that surplus land only would be dealt with, it would be a considerable relief to many who are in no way antagonistic to the Bill.
    Mr. E. H. CARLILE: The President of the Local Government Board in his speech referred only to future arrangements. Whether he did it advisedly or not I do not know, but I should think those who are connected with these great undertakings would probably be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman would carry out the spirit of his last speech by saying that future arrangements will not be likely to interfere with these great interests. If the future arrangements of the right hon. Gentleman are allowed to undo the action of the House in the past, and to interfere with land already set aside for specific purposes in connection with these great undertakings, such as dock companies, canal companies, water companies, and railways, then it is a preposterous position to take up. If the right hon. Gentleman is willing to confine the operation of the Clause to land that may be subsequently acquired by railway companies, canal companies, and dock companies, then the sting will be taken out of it, and all these undertakings which are carried out on behalf of the public would be entered upon with these schemes laid before them; they would know all the advantages or disadvantages that would be likely to accrue to their various under-
    206
    takings, and there would be no particular harm done. What appears to me to be a particular hardship is that the right hon. Gentleman is going to make arrangements in future to deal with arrangements that have been made more or less in the past, and to set up these local authorities and the Local Government Board as the judges as to whether these pieces of land are really required in connection with these great undertakings. The local authorities and the Local Government Board are to decide the matter, and it is quite impossible to suppose they are qualified to do so. What is the Board of Trade going to say about this? Railways, for instance, are undertakings which come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade. We shall have a nice state of things presently. We shall have the President of the Local Government Board and the President of the Board of Trade at loggerheads over this—the President of the Board of Trade very properly and very rightly trying to secure for these great public undertakings those rights which have been accorded to them on the floor of this House, and the President of the Local Government Board egging on those local authorities to upset and break down those rights, in order to carry out all sorts of schemes.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Amendment.
    Mr. CARLILE: May I point out that I am endeavouring to strictly confine myself to the Amendment, which deals with the undertakings to which I have referred?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is suggesting a possible conflict between the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board. The Board of Trade does not come in here. It is only a question of the Local Government Board authorising the local authorities, within the meaning of this part of this Bill, to prepare a town planning scheme.
    Mr. CARLILE: My point was that the Local Government Board is proposing to interfere with these interests, which in very many ways come under the control and direction of the Board of Trade. With great respect, I thought I was justified in making some reference to possible difficulties that might arise between the two Departments. If the right hon. Gentleman will confine his proposal to future arrangements in connection with these great public companies, then I think the difficulty would be overcome.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is a little difficult, owing to the method under which we are discussing this measure, to follow exactly what is proposed. If I read the proposals rightly, it would be possible under this scheme for a local authority under a town planning scheme to require the removal of a railway from one part of the town to another. If that is not so, no doubt the Government will explain it. Clause 56 says: "The responsible authority may at any time, after giving such notice as may be provided by a town planning scheme and in accordance with the provisions of the scheme (a) remove, pull down, or alter any building or other work in the area included in the scheme which is such as to contravene the scheme, or in the erection or carrying out of which any provision of the scheme has not been complied with." They may in default of their orders being carried out execute the work. Let me put a case which does not seem to be extravagant. A local authority oppose a railway Bill, and the Committee of the two Houses agree that the Bill is a desirable one, and that the railway should be in the position which is shown on the deposited plan. A few months afterwards, or a couple of years afterwards, they secure a favourable President of the Local Government Board, and the local authority go to him and propose a town planning scheme, setting out that no railway whatever shall be constructed in the particular position but in another position. That seems to me to be perfectly within the powers of the Bill. If that is confirmed, the effect of the decision of Parliament given on this particular point as to where the railway would be would be overruled. It may be said that no local authority would do such a thing or that no President of the Local Government Board would confirm it. I am not at all sure of that. I am not in the least sure about the local authority. They look at
    it from their point of view. They do not look at the general point of view or the interests of communication throughout the whole country, which is what the Committee has to do. Personally, without the slightest disrespect to the present President of the Local Government Board, I have a profound distrust of all Government Departments in judicial methods, and I am sure every experience we have had in recent years of their judicial action confirms that opinion. They are not fitted for judicial decisions at all. The effect of this Bill is really to hand over a railway company, wherever a town planning scheme may be made, entirely to the jurisdiction of the President of the Local Government Board, though that undertaking has been authorised by Parliament after the most elaborate inquiry. I have no interest in the railway companies, and I confess I look at the matter from the point of view of the constitutional position. It seems to be an outrage to say that a Government Department, with or without the assent of a locality, should be entitled to set aside the decisions of Parliament without any appeal. I very much regret the Government have not seen fit to modify this portion of the scheme. I feel convinced that if we had been discussing this under normal conditions this proposal would have failed. The Government know that only three or four hours remain, and we are quite at their mercy. They have got some 20 Members in the House, and 50 or 60 more will come in and join them from the Terrace and support them, whatever may have been the arguments or the proposal. If we were discussing this under unrestricted conditions, I do not believe this would have been persisted in.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 176.

    Division No. 560.]

    AYES.

    [4.40 p.m.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Guinness. Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Bright. J. A.

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanier, Beville

    Cave, George

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Valentia, Viscount

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Winterton, Earl

    Fell, Arthur

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Forster, Henry William

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Sir F. Banbury and Viscount Morpeth.

    Goulding. Edward Alfred

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Hazleton. Richard

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pointer, J.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hobhouse. Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Radford, G. H.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Hogan, Michael

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Reddy M.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hudson, Walter

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Rees, J. D.

    Beale, W. P.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Jenkins, J.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Joyce, Michael

    Robinson, S.

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Boland, John

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Lambert, George

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Lamont, Norman

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Rowlands, J.

    Clough, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lundon, T.

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sheehy, David

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Crean, Eugene

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Crooks, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Crosfield, A. H.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Curran, Peter Francis

    M'Callum, John M.

    Snowden, P.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifien)

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir john P.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Elibank, Master of

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Morrell, Philip

    Verney, F. W.

    Falconer, James

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Vivian, Henry

    Ferens, T. R.

    Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Myer, Horatio

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Waring, Walter

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Nolan, Joseph

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Ginnell, L.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    White, J Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Glover, Thomas

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gulland, John W.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Winfrey, R.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Malley, William

    Young, Samuel

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Paul, Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONmoved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "or in the neighbourhood of" [" land: within or in the neighbourhood of"].
    I wish to direct the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to a sense of the importance of this proposal, because I am speaking, I may say, at the request of several of the more important of the county councils on this point. It involves a very serious matter, and there is under this part of the scheme a certain amount of overlapping between different local authorities. I am anxious
    210
    that the right hon. Gentleman should understand that I am in no sense wanting to insist that local authorities should be compelled to work in their own separate areas. That would be the effect of this Amendment taken by itself; but there are a large number of consequential Amendments which, unfortunately, we shall have no opportunity of discussing, but which in another place may receive the attention they deserve. In the meantime, I am anxious that the Committee should consider this question of the overlapping of different authorities, and what will result

    211
    where the territory of one local authority infringes on the territory of another. Two sets of cases will obviously arise in which this may happen. It may happen when a county local authority prepares a scheme which overlaps the territory of a burgh or urban local authority; or the converse may be the case. If the first of these cases took place I have no doubt that serious objection would be at once taken to the proposal. There are cases where that might happen, but I do not think they are very likely, although I know one or two cases in the county of Lanarkshire where that state of things might very conceivably arise. But the other case will almost certainly occur. An urban local authority will come to the Local Government Board and ask them to approve of a scheme which will allow them to take in part of the area at present administered by the county council. There are two or three considerations which should be borne in mind before the proposals of the Bill as they stand are allowed to be carried into effect. The London County Council have already had this matter under consideration, and have been careful to make provision that, whatever happens to other county authorities, what I have described shall not happen to them; because at the end of Clause 54 there is a special proviso that no other local authority is to be responsible for enforcing a scheme within the area of the London County Council except with its consent. That clears London out of the way, but the same important question will arise in connection with other authorities. Take the County Council of Lanarkshire, whose area impinges on the territory of the municipality of Glasgow. What are the possible reasons which justify a new departure of this character in the matter of local government? It may be said that the county councils at present have not powers properly to administer populous areas, or that, having powers, they do not exercise them. I do not think that either of those statements, so far as Lanarkshire is concerned, has any foundation in fact. County councils have very large powers to carry on the work of administering populous areas, and, so far as my knowledge goes, they are not slow to avail themselves of them. Even supposing both contentions were true, the remedy in Scotland would not be that proposed in the Bill. If, on the one hand, a county council neglects to use its powers, you should give the Local Government
    212
    Board power to put pressure on the county council; or if, on the other hand, a county council has not the powers, fresh powers-should be given, but not, as this Bill proposes, to another and a different local authority altogether. I see a certain amount of danger in the proposal. In the first place, there is the obvious danger of friction between local authorities. Even although there are provisions in Clause 54 and elsewhere with a view to smoothing: over the friction, I still think there- is bound to be a not inconsiderable amount of difficulty and bitterness brought into the relations of the different local authorities. That is serious from the point of view of the inhabitants of the area in dispute, but there is a question much more serious. What is likely to happen when you have an area which will probably be sought to be included by an urban authority in one of these town planning schemes? Is it not absolutely certain that a county-council, before spending any large amount of money in that area, will wait to see whether the urban, authority proposes to include it in one of its schemes? The county council will not spend large sums of money in a particular area which is almost certain within a few years to be taken away from it. When an urban local authority came to this House to ask for an extension of the borough bounds, it would be an almost irresistible argument in its favour if it could show that for a number of years it had been administering that area for the purposes of this Act. Further, it is obvious that, pending the preparation of any such scheme, the inhabitants of that locality are likely to be in a very difficult position, because the urban authority will have no power to spend money on the area, and the county council will be disinclined to incur expenditure in connection with territory which before long is likely to be taken away from it. I quite recognise that you cannot expect local authorities in this matter to work in absolutely water-tight compartments; but it would be a thousand pities if for the sake of the benefits of a town planning scheme you were to have in the intervening period a paralysis of local government in the area to be affected. I suggest that at all events further provisions should be inserted in the Bill giving, the council of an area likely to be affected by a scheme greater powers to make themselves heard before the scheme is approved. I ask, in the first place, that the county council should have a statutory right to be heard before a scheme of an adjoining urban local authority is ap-

    213
    proved by the Local Government Board; and, in the second place, that when a joint board is created the county council should have a statutory right to representation upon it. If those two conditions were given effect to much of the difficulty of the present proposals would be removed. While. I have every desire that the right hon. Gentleman's schemes should bear the fruit we all hope they will, I am afraid that in this particular they are likely to bring about a certain amount of bitterness between local authorities and a considerable amount of hardship and neglect in the areas affected.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. BURNS: So far as this Clause and the Amendment just moved specially concern Scotland, I will leave the Lord Advocate to supplement what I have said on the general scheme. The hon. Member himself frankly admitted that he had no desire to keep local authorities promoting town planning schemes in watertight compartments. Whilst making that generous admission he also said that there would arise under this Bill a certain amount of overlapping. When a local authority promotes a town planning scheme which takes within its purview a neighbouring area without which the scheme would be impossible, a certain amount of overlapping of action and intention is inevitable, and nothing the hon. Member can suggest or we can do in this Bill will prevent it. What we have to do is to mitigate the hardship of the inevitable overlapping. What steps do we take to do that? Take the City of Glasgow. The City of Glasgow is a very enterprising and ambitious body. It has shown great energy and ability in its wonderful system of tramways, which, in my opinion, must be an adjunct of any rational town planning scheme. I believe that in that particular Glasgow has had no difficulty in coming to an arrangement with the adjoining townships, so that so far as tramways are concerned there is not much fear of friction, or overlapping, and the mutual interests of the outer townships and of the city are advantageously served by the central authority owning and working the tramways. Supposing Glasgow decides upon a town planning scheme, looking 10 or 15, probably 50 years ahead, as I trust growing cities will seriously undertake to do. Under the present Amendment we should find that Govan, Partick, and other places would be able to say, "Oh, Glasgow is impinging upon our territory; we have a right to be
    214
    heard. We can defy Glasgow and prevent its expanding in this way." This is not an expansion of a city's authority and jurisdiction with the object of grabbing territory for the purpose of getting rateable value, or improving its treasury, or reducing its rates relatively at the expense of the adjoining townships. The object of the expansion is to confer an advantage upon Glasgow itself, whilst at the same time conferring a greater benefit upon the relatively undeveloped townships outside, which, for lack of a joint town planning scheme, 15 or 20 years hence, would be considerably damnified. Therefore, on the merits of the Amendment, we cannot allow large cities to be cribbed, cabined, and confined by recalcitrant local authorities, who do not take a prescient view of their growth and development; but we have a right to say to them, "No; you: can join in with the larger city, and as a joint authority you can promote a town planning scheme mutually agreeable and beneficial. You shall go to the Local Government Board of the particular country in which you are situated and make it the medium for bringing together at a public inquiry and adjusting and arbitrating upon, probably without much difficulty, the conflicting schemes of both authorities." That is particularly easy with regard to Scotland, because I understand that the county councils of Scotland enjoy analogous powers and responsibilities to those of the urban district councils in England. They can do many things both as a county council and as an urban district which an English urban district cannot do as a county council or a county council as an urban district. So that in that regard this particular part of Lanarkshire would be safeguarded. Then he said, "What about the inhabitants?" Is it safe to assume that the County Council of Lanarkshire cannot be left to safeguard the interests of the inhabitants of Lanarkshire as against this invading local authority for the invading local authority's future benefit? He will pardon me if I cannot differentiate between the inhabitants themselves and their civic representation—namely, the city of which they form a part. The other point which he raised is, "What is the safeguard?" If he looks at Sub-section (3) of Clause 54 he will see that the joint body may be responsible, and it is only right that it should be so for cities like Glasgow and London. For instance, why should not

    215
    London and West Ham come to a mutual arrangement to take joint action? If that can be done this Bill will give every facility for it. I really do not apprehend the trouble which the hon. Gentleman implies. On the contrary, I believe if there is a part in the United Kingdom where town planning is more desirable than any other it is the River Clyde. If there is a part of the world where the natural beauty and what were the greatest amenities in the United Kingdom have been sacrificed to local and pettifogging claims of a parochial character it is to be found within Glasgow and within a 12 or 15 miles' radius. The hon. Member can rest assured of this: When my Department and myself had the intention of forming a town planning scheme we had in our minds and heart the great city of Glasgow, 50 per cent. of whose people are living in one or two rooms, where housing conditions are intolerable, where almost one can say of some stretches of the river, "Where every prospect did please, and where man has made it vile." To prevent a continuation of that is the object of our town planning scheme, and we consider Lanarkshire will be well protected, and that Glasgow will be able to improve its future development without any injustice being done to anybody.
    Sir FRANCIS POWELL: There has been shown in this Debate a disposition to make this Bill as useful as possible, but there must be some limitation to its application. I must confess that I have always felt an extension beyond the district was attended with great risk. The phraseology of this term "neighbourhood" is unfortunate. I am not quite sure it is to be found in the law books. It is rather a term of conversation, one used in the Debates, and of a vague character. I think, if we are going at all beyond the boundary, it ought not to be put in this vague form. Instead of the term "neighbourhood," I think the phrase should rather be "adjacent to" or "immediately contiguous to," or Something of that kind. The word "neighbourhood" might include some district not adjoining, which might have some peculiar recommendation of its own. I think it would be a very hard case to the other district for the original district, or to term it so, to the district proposed to be added, that so vague a definition of duties and powers should be given as is described in these very vague terms. Action under this Clause and many other
    216
    parts of the Bill is compulsory. That, I think, aggravates my objection. When you are to apply compulsory powers you surely ought to define in a very careful manner the area in which it is proposed to exercise those powers. These difficulties have occurred to me from the first in connection with this phraseology. I did not raise them before the Standing Committee, because we had plenty of work on hand at that time. I believe it will be a grave defect in the Bill if it is allowed to go through.
    Viscount MORPETH: I am afraid that the Amendment, as it stands, goes beyond what some of us wish, and what, indeed, my hon. Friend desires to do. He only desires to draw attention to necessary safeguards. It is quite obvious that for large and populous centres like the big cities of this country there must be facilities for town planning over a large area, which, perhaps, will stretch into the jurisdiction of neighbouring county councils. I do not think any rural districts, as distinguished from urban parts of this country, desire to stop that planning in what may be called their territory. What we do desire is that full guarantees shall be given to county councils that nothing shall be done on the territory under their jurisdiction without their full knowledge, both ample and given in plenty of time. Further, that if they wish for it—I can quite conceive in many cases they may not wish it—they should be entitled to representation. In Sub-section (3), Clause 54, power is taken by the Local Government Board to adjudicate as to which of two authorities is to be the responsible authority. No doubt in almost every case the responsible authority will be the town authority which is making the town planning scheme. It is only right that it should be so. But I suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that if the outside authorities desire representation they should be entitled to it as a right. As the Clause is drawn it is only to be given to them if the Local Government Board so directs, or, indeed, it may be given to the composite authority. There is no guarantee that the county council will be represented. We turn to Schedule 5, and I would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this, and ask him, when he replies, to give us some information concerning it. Under paragraph (c)—" Objections and representations by persons affected"—"persons affected" seems to mean only private individuals, landowners, and the like who

    217
    may consider themselves aggrieved. I wish to know whether an outside authority such as the county council is included in the expression "persons affected," or if they are left altogether out of the Schedule? These are the two points I desire to mention: First, as to whether an outside authority such as the county council can be held to be specified in Schedule 5? Secondly, whether the right hon. Gentleman will favourably consider the proposal to give an outside authority representation as a right, if they wish it, on any joint body that maybe constituted?
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: One word about the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has made in reply to me. I listened with some attention to it, and I fail to gather what are his views with regard to the two suggestions which I put forward in mitigaton of these difficulties which he himself admits are not unlikely to occur. I may say again that I do not want to press this Amendment with the object of shutting up the authorities in separate cells. But I have brought it forward because I do want to point out, what the right hon. Gentleman recognises, that there are great difficulties in the way of practical administration. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Glasgow and neighbourhood. I do not understand him to suggest for one moment that there has been any conflict between, let me say, the Lanarkshire County Council or that of Dumbartonshire; but what I do suggest is this: that in the case of a scheme brought forward for town planning by the City of Glasgow, which goes into the area of the Lanarkshire County Council or the Dumbartonshire County Council, there shall be powers given as a right to these county councils. One is the power, if they wish it, of representation on the body which is going to be charged with the control of that particular area. The second is that they should have power as a right to be heard by the Local Government Board before the Local Government Board commits itself to a scheme by giving its approval to it. If I understand aright, it seems to me they have under Sub-section (6) a statutory right to be heard in a case of revocation or alteration of the scheme. I cannot find any passage which gives them a statutory right to be heard by the Local Government Board when the scheme is being made. I think that is probably an omission in the drafting of the Bill. Certainly they ought to have the last right, and I also think the right of statutory
    218
    representation. The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything on that point in his very courteous reply.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman, replying to my hon. Friend, took the case of Glasgow. In outlining the-scheme, he said that it would not include the Treasury. But all these schemes will be schemes for wasting considerable sums of money. I do not think they will do anything else. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that, at any rate, they will not improve the finances of the local authorities, but tend in an opposite direction. He went on to say, "Why should not London and West Ham come to terms?" I do not know why, except that under the Clauses of this Bill there will be no opportunity. London will be able to go to West Ham and say, "We have got the approval of the President of the Local Government Board, and we do not care whether you agree or not. You can take a back seat."
    Mr. BURNS: The county council could not say that to West Ham, because the Local Government Board would say, Before the county council attempted to put upon West Ham, or vice versâ, that a public inquiry would have to be held. The two bodies affected would be represented and heard, and the scheme promoted would be submitted to this tribunal. The idea of one body dictating in the sense indicated by the hon. Baronet is impossible.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not quite understand. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I said provided that London had got the consent of the Local Government Board they could go to West Ham and say, "Oh, we do not care what you think."
    Mr. BURNSdissented.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has just said so. There would have to be an inquiry—
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Baronet has misunderstood me. The consent of the Local Government Board to the county council in advance of West Ham being heard or represented on the point is impossible.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That depends upon who the President of the Local Government Board is going to be. You cannot tell in the least what he is going to be in the future. He might be quite an impossible person. That is not an unlikely contingency. We are legislating for the Local Government Board, not as it exists,

    219
    but for the time to come. It is no answer to the argument of the hon. Member to say, "Oh, but the Local Government Board is not going to do such a thing" You cannot tell what the Local Government Board is or is not going to do. Under the Clause as it stands, it will have power to allow London to go to West Ham, and to say, "The Local Government Board has decided against you, and we are going to do something which is absolutely against your wishes or desires." The right hon. Gentleman got up and said, "It is not likely that that will occur." That is his opinion. I may as well say, in my opinion, I think it is very likely to occur. We neither of us know what may happen under the provisions of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that Glasgow was, in his opinion, a blot upon the face of the globe with regard to certain things.
    Mr. BURNS: No, no.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Well, I withdraw that, but he said it was badly managed.
    Mr. BURNS: No, no.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Not even badly managed?
    Mr. BURNS: What I suggested was a lack of foresight on the part of the city fathers 70 or 80 years ago owing to their not having a Bill like this to work upon.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Am I not right in saying that there is no lack of empty houses in Glasgow at present? The lack of foresight on the part of the city fathers seems to me in having built too much and not in having built too little.
    Mr. BURNS: The city fathers have not built. What has happened is that wrong houses have been built in wrong places.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That, again, is a matter of opinion. I really do not see how we can tell that the houses were built in wrong places or that they are wrong houses. I quite admit that the Corporation of Glasgow themselves have not built, but they have allowed other people to build. The result is exactly the same whether the houses were built by private enterprise or by public authority. I must say that these words which are proposed to be left out of the Amendment seem to me to be very dangerous and to give enormous powers to the local authority and to the Local Government Board. I really
    220
    think these ought to be limited in some such sense such as is intended by my hon. Friend. Even then I think it goes a little further than I would go—at any rate, I think the power ought to be limited in some such way as to enable the other local authority to have the power of veto. I do not think one local authority should plant itself down in the middle of another area without the consent of that particular area. I do not know whether my hon. Friend intends to proceed to a Division. I think this is a very serious question. There is one possible doubt which only occurred to me just this moment, and that is that in all probability the local authorities will be at loggerheads in a few years and the scheme will be a failure. I think it is extremely likely, and if the right hon. Gentleman desires that his Bill should be a success, and does not desire to bring a hornet's nest about his ears, I suggest that he should accept this Amendment.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I think the views put forward by my hon. Friend are very sensible. I speak as a friend of this Clause, and I think my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that a serious risk was involved in the Clause as it stands at present by reason of the friction that may arise among the conflicting authorities, and you cannot do a better thing to obviate that possible friction than to do with the local authorities what every Briton likes to have done, namely, to give them a fair hearing, in the first instance, before the Local Government Board, to see whether the scheme should be authorised at all, and to give them some representation upon the resident authority in order that the invaded local authority may assure its constituents that, at any rate, nothing has been done callously or heatedly or without due representation by persons really competent to represent the matter of responsible authority. I feel quite certain that the power is absolutely necessary if you are to have a town planning scheme of an extensive character; that is, if you should have power to invade other local authorities—I do not use the words in any hostile sense—if you have power to come into the territories of other county councils. The whole merit in my view of this Bill, and I think it has very great merits, is that it enables a far-sighted view to be taken. Therefore, I think this provision is necessary, and I think, and my hon. Friend agrees with me, you allow it to be imperilled by friction with local authorities, which I have often seen in my time, and which will undoubtedly be a risk. I can

    221
    hardly resist saying that the instance given of the County Council and West Ham is rather a curious instance. I remember your predecessor in the chair, Mr. Emmott, saying when an accusation was made in this House that the Prime Minister was in collusion with the Chairman of Committees, and somebody rose to Order, "It is in Order to say that the Prime Minister is in collusion with the Chairman of Committees, but it is not in Order to say that the Chairman of Committees is in collusion with the Prime Minister" Some such position is taken up by the London County Council having the right to invade West Ham if it pleases, while in no case is West Ham to invade London.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I do not propose to go over the ground of this controversy, but the hon. Member for Lanark put one or two queries which were reinforced by the right hon. Gentleman who just sat down. The right hon. Gentleman said it is undoubtedly necessary in any town planning scheme that the local authority most affected should have power to go out beyond its boundaries, but he thinks some limits should be put to their powers. It is not very easy to find phraseology defining or limiting the lines beyond which a, local authority shall not go as to its boundaries. It is not very easy to put limitations of a geographical character, or of a character involving measure upon a local authority. The general principle is not easy to lay down. All that you can do is to try and check any improper application of that power. I do not myself see how the draftsman of a measure of this kind could adopt any other words than those which have been put into the Bill giving power in general terms, but taking care that there is some check upon its exercise either involved in the principle of the Bill, or in the machinery of the Bill. I think the checks here are very adequate. First, there is the question of the period on the part of the county council. The hon. Member asked whether the word "person" includes a corporation. It is quite clear it does. The word "person" is freely used, and there is no doubt as to the powers of representation given to persons, and the word "person" does include corporation. The interpretation includes any corporate body, so any corporate body would have the power under the 5th Schedule to make objections and representations.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, no. Power to make representations only in the
    222
    case of the varying or revoking of a scheme.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I think not, The hon. Member has not quite distinguished between two sections. Varying and revoking is Clause 53, Sub-section (6), and that is not the section which refers to the 5th Schedule. The Clause referring to the 5th Schedule is 55, and that Clause gives very general power to the Local Government Board to make regulations for very general purposes, and it goes on to say provision shall be made by these regulations (c) I miss out (a) and (b) for they are dealing with other matters mentioned in the 5th Schedule, which has nothing to do with the varying or revoking. The 5th Schedule (c) says, "Hearing of objections and representations by persons affected" Now reading that as interpreted by the Interpretations Act it would mean "hearing of objections and representations by bodies corporate or societies otherwise interested." So there is doubt about the power of hearing upon the making of a scheme. The case under the Clause to which the hon. Member refers, that is, Clause 53 (6), deals with the power of varying and revoking of any scheme. Another point put of which I feel the force, but which I think is thoroughly met by the provisions of the Bill, is as to the joint body where the land is in the area of more than one local authority the Local Government Board may direct who shall be the responsible authority. It may select the responsible authority from among the local authorities, and that, I think, is a wise discretion. It may also divide the powers; it may be that the county council only desires to preserve certain powers without using them thoroughly. They may say to the Local Government Board, "We do not want to delegate our members to take part in the actual management, but we do want to see certain powers carefully preserved," and the power is given to the Local Government Board to say you may give representation in its fullest sense—you may constitute the county council a part of the authority which comes into its area. I think these difficulties have been very thoroughly and usefully raised, and are met by the machinery of the Bill. And, although the Bill may have some defects, still I think, on the whole, the machinery contained in it is the best.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am very much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the information

    223
    he has given us, but I am bound to say while I would prefer that the local authority affected should have statutory representation on the body and should not have to rely upon the possibility of the Local Government Board giving that representation, I do not think, in the circumstances, that I should be right in pressing the Amendment, and will, therefore, ask leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MUNRO FERGUSONmoved, in Sub-section (2), after the word "or" ["or may authorise a local authority to adopt"], to insert the words "with the consent of the local authority, and, subject to any agreement between such authority and the owners, the Board."
    Under the Clause as it stands, any individual or any body can prepare a plan without consulting the Local Government Board. I think a local authority ought to give its consent to any scheme prepared by any individual or by any other authority. I think that is a fair proposition, and it is one which is certainly very generally supported in Scotland. I think that is a form of responsibility which ought to be allowed to the local authority under the Bill. The town council of Glasgow would have to go to the Scottish Local Government Board and ask consent to bring in a plan. I think that would be an absurdity. If an individual landowner or any society or corporation can draft a scheme without the consent of the central authority, it is only reasonable that the local authority should be allowed to do the same thing without having to get the consent of the Local Government Board. I know this matter was debated in Committee, but I still think that the consent of the Board ought not to be necessary in the case of a borough council any more than in the case of a private landowner or any society. I beg to move.
    Mr. BURNS: The Clause relating to this matter was carried on the Grand Committee without a Division. I mention that fact to bring home to the hon. Member for Leith Burghs, who moved this Amendment, that after deliberate consideration and discussion at considerable length the Committee were under the impression that this was the best way to proceed with the promotion of town planning schemes. It is perfectly true to say that private owners are allowed to prepare schemes, but I wish to point out that the Local Government
    224
    Board has not the power over the private owner that it has over the local authorities. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman might suggest can alter that condition of things. If any body is anxious to promote a town planning scheme they will draft a scheme, prepare plans and specifications, and if aprimâ facie case for presenting them to the Local Government Board for Scotland is made out, the Board would probably allow it to proceed. It might, for instance, say to Glasgow, "There is no objection to you making a preliminary effort and drafting a hypothetical scheme to materialise before it comes before the inquiry," but I do not think in the case of the scheme referred to by the hon. Member the central authority would be justified in accepting such a condition as that which is laid down in the Amendment. In the judgment of the Government the local authorities are sufficiently protected, and as we have not the same power over the private owners as we enjoy over local authorities it seems to me that we ought to give a private owner some protection, and some guarantee against a reactionary or non-progressive local authority which is determined to put every obstacle in the way of an owner co-operating with the local authority at the right time in the right way, and where a private owner is benevolently inclined to improve the amenities of his district that private owner ought to be protected. For these reasons we think the local authority is sufficiently safeguarded, and I ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.
    Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: My right hon. Friend should bear in mind that there are a number of syndicates or associations, and they will be able to draw up schemes without first obtaining the approval of the local authority. I do not think local authorities should be put in an inferior position to syndicates and associations of that kind. In England associations of this kind put in a claim to have direct access to the Local Government Board, and this was very much resented by local authorities. There is the same sort of feeling in Scotland in regard to syndicates being able to prepare schemes before they get the approval of the Local Government Board. I may say that the Local Government Board in Scotland is a body which does not carry much confidence. Under the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURYmoved, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "a piece of land already built upon, or." If those words are not left out the Local Government Board will have a most extraordinary power. They will have power "where it is made to appear to the Local Government Board that a piece of land already built upon, or a piece of land not likely to be used for building purposes, is so situated" to adopt a scheme which will allow them to demolish or alter the buildings already in existence on this piece of land. A piece of land in a Bill of this sort may not sound anything very alarming, and the President of the Local Government Board may tell us that neither the local authority nor the Local Government Board will be likely to do anything foolish. This House has to take care that they have not the power to do anything foolish. Supposing there was a local authority, who fancied themselves great architects and great improvers of the human race generally. Such an authority might practically demolish a whole town, because there is no limitation under this Clause. The hon. Member, for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) might some day be President of the Local Government Board, and he might authorise the demolition of a whole town and re-erect it at the cost of the ratepayers in an æsthetic and artistic manner quite regardless of the consideration as to whether the new scheme would pay. Under these particular words, as the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord R. Cecil) pointed out, the station of a railway company, the works of the water company, or the docks of a harbour board might all be demolished under these particular words. I fail to see any limit to what will arise if these words are left in. I hope the President of the Local Government Board will not reply that local authorities or the Local Government Board are not likely to do anything so foolish. I am not questioning their bonâ fide s, but I am anxious that we should lay down the exact conditions which we wish to be enacted in the Bill. There is no doubt that the functions of the House of Commons are rapidly being taken away, and there is a tendency to say that if a Department requires a certain thing it is sufficient for them to give the House of Commons a general outline, and hon. Members are asked to put such trust in them and give them power to do whatever they please without coming to the House for confirmation of those powers. Only yesterday we were told that Parliament ought to concern itself
    226
    only with Imperial matters, and all other matters should be left to the different Departments. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs said he had no confidence in the Local Government Board for Scotland. Here we have, not a benighted Tory, but a Radical Member, stating that he has no confidence in the Local Government Board for Scotland. and yet you are proposing by this Clause to give to that very body which Scotch Members have no confidence in, the power to take a piece of land which has been built upon and demolish those buildings. I think the height of absurdity has been reached when the House of Commons is asked to sanction such a procedure. Why not do away with the House of Commons altogether, and let the right hon. Gentleman opposite legislate as he likes? That would save a great deal of trouble and a great deal of speech-making to an empty House. Hon. Members who support the Government do not take the trouble to listen to the Debate, because they prefer to be on the Terrace or in the smoking-room.
    Mr. H. VIVIAN: Where are your people?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Unfortunately we are a very small number, and only comprise about one-fourth of the House of Commons. Upon the last Amendment I said I was afraid the result of the decision of the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment would bring a hornets' nest about his ears. He does not seem to mind that, and I know he is a man of great courage, but he does not realise what may be the effect of these particular words if, all over the country houses are to be demolished at the sweet will of the local authority and himself. The financial effects alone will be so bad that the right hon. Gentleman will regret he did not accept this Amendment. I would appeal to him to show a little more disposition to meet his opponents. Up to the present time he has shown no signs of any disposition to meet hon. Members on this side of the House. I do not know whether he has been relying upon the powers given to him under the guillotine or whether he does not think our protests are worth attention. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister ha3 returned to the House. Perhaps he will be able to put a little pressure on his colleague, who is really so hard and unbending that it is quite impossible to obtain the slightest concession from him. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will listen

    227
    to the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) and, if he thinks there is anything in them, that he will request the President of the Local Government Board to be more lenient to the Opposition. I can assure the Prime Minister that we have put our arguments in the most courteous way, and not in the least in any endeavour to be factious or to create opposition for the mere sake of opposition.
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Baronet is giving me a character for firmness that I really do not deserve. If he will take the trouble to look at the Division Lists of yesterday—and there were 15 Divisions—he will find that in 10 out of the 15 Divisions we made concessions more or less with a view of tempering the wind to the shorn lamb.
    Sir F. BANBURY: A good deal less than more.
    Mr. BURNS: Sufficient for the day was the goodness thereof. With regard to today, I have already expressed my willingness to the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Lanarkshire to move a number of reasonable Amendments, which I think sufficient for their object, and the hon. Baronet is doing me an injustice when he says I am absolutely firm and unyielding. I must, however, tell the hon. Baronet that on the particular point he raises he does not give me much opportunity for making a concession, because the complaint he makes, I think, events will prove is unreasonable, not to say unfair. He asks us to cut out certain words from Sub-section (3) of Clause 53. The Sub-section reads:—
    "(3) Where it is made to appear to the Local Government Board that a piece of land already built upon, or a piece of land not likely to be used for building purposes, is so situated with respect to any land likely to be used for building purposes that it ought to be included in any town planning scheme made with respect to the last-mentioned land, the Board may authorise the preparation or adoption of a scheme including such piece of land as aforesaid, and providing for the demolition or alteration of any buildings thereon so far as may be necessary for carrying the scheme into effect."
    When we worded the Sub-section as I have read it, we had this situation in view. You have a township, say, of 10,000 acres, three-quarters of which is occupied by houses, roads, parks, and other amenities.
    228
    It is necessary either for a town planning scheme of a single authority, or for a scheme of the authority of that township and an adjoining authority, to extend say to the westward of the town. There is a road, say a road approaching to the railway station, abutting upon a piece of land that is to be included within the town planning scheme. The road is only 16 or 15 feet wide, and it is necessary for railway purposes and for the purposes of the town planning scheme that that 18 feet road should be converted into a road 40, 50, or 60 feet wide. That will impinge upon the corner of a field in which there is a pigsty, a tool shed, or an outhouse, perhaps of a golf club. Are we to say that the town planning scheme shall not be allowed to proceed, and that the local authority or authorities shall not have the power to pull down a building of that kind? It would be an absurd restriction of the town planning scheme, and of the sensible powers which a local authority ought to have, and which, if it were an urban authority, it would probably have under Michael Angelo Taylor's Act. The hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover-square (Mr. Lyttelton) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. H. Vivian) knows that in garden cities and garden suburbs like Bourneville, Letchworth, and Port Sunlight there were a few sheds or buildings that had to be absorbed or appropriated in the mapping out of the general town planning schemes, and the local authority ought to have power, on fair and equitable terms, to pull down such buildings.
    Mr. CAVE: So far as this refers to buildings that can be removed or taken under Michael Angelo Taylor's Act, I think the Government might rely upon the present law. The Clause, however, makes town planning schemes retrospective, and it means that the Local Government Board, without any consent, may make or approve of a scheme compelling the removal of buildings already erected. You must read these particular words with the words at the end of Sub-section (3), namely, "The scheme may provide for the demolition or alteration of any buildings thereon so far as may be necessary for carrying the scheme into effect." You must also read it with the later Clause, which provides that without any appeal to the court the Board may, if it thinks the house is an obstruction to the scheme, authorise the authority without any order of any court summarily to remove the building. These

    229
    are great powers, and I do think they want a little more consideration than was given to them in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I always object to giving these wholly arbitrary powers to a Government Department. The Local Government Board, according to this Section, are made the judges of whether land is likely to be used for building. Even although the owner has not the least intention of using it for building purposes, the Board may say, "The land is likely to be so used." Having given that decision, they are again to say whether neighbouring land or buildings which have already been erected before the Act was brought in ought to be included in the scheme. Those buildings may be not the buildings of a golf club or any buildings of that kind, but a house or even a row of houses.
    If the authority, backed by the Government Department, thinks that particular house or that particular row of houses is not in accordance with the scheme they desire to see carried out they can compel the pulling down of that house or houses. I think that is monstrous. It is all very well to lay down your plans for the future. It is well and wise to do that, but I think it is an innovation, and an unwise one, that Parliament should empower any Department, without any obligation to come to Parliament again, to pull down existing houses in order to give effect to some scheme they have in their minds. To be quite fair, if the Bill contained anything like fair provision for compensation, part of my objection would be removed, but, according to my view, which I hold very strongly, there is no such provision in the Bill. The only compensation provisions are those in Clause 57, which provides that the amount of loss or gain to an owner is to be determined by the Local Government Board—by the very people who are backing the scheme, who have approved of it, and may perhaps have inspired it. They are to say what is to be paid to the owner as compensation for his land taken or for his buildings compulsorily pulled down. I think that is grossly unfair, and is likely to be the occasion of very great injustice to owners who are affected by this scheme. There is to be no appeal to any court. There is this further extraordinary provision. If the Local Government Board think a man is going to gain by the scheme they may say so, and he must pay his contribution at once; but if they think he is going to lose, they are indeed to say so, but he is not to get compensation until the loss actually occurs. I have never seen in
    230
    any Bill a provision more unfair or more inadequate than this which deals with compensation, and it is partly because I object to these compensation provisions as unfair that I also object to the power given by this Clause to pull down houses. While it is right, and I am quite in sympathy with it, to authorise local authorities to make town planning schemes—to lay down lines on which future buildings may be erected—I do insist that it is no necessary and proper part of that provision that you should also enable local authorities to go back and object to buildings already erected in perfect good faith before any scheme was thought of and to compel the pulling down of those buildings without fair compensation.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: My view of this matter will very largely depend upon whether the right hon. Gentleman is able to make any satisfactory statement as to his attitude about the compensation Clauses. I am rather a strong advocate of compulsory powers where they are necessary. I think if there is real cause for a town planning scheme in the public interest I would be very strongly in favour of compulsory powers being used providing, of course, that those whose interests are affected shall have full compensation. The right hon. Gentleman says we will deal with that compensation afterwards. What I want to point out is that the proposals for dealing with it in the Bill are of a very unsatisfactory nature, and it is impossible for well wishers of the measure to consent to its provisions because of the unsatisfactory and possibly unjust character of the tribunal to be erected under the compensation Clauses. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) has pointed out there may be cases of great hardship in the demolition or alteration of buildings under this scheme. I may point out also that very hard cases indeed have occurred to landowners and proprietors under schemes of public utility which have been promoted under the existing law. I was myself counsel for a man who, by virtue of a permanent water scheme, was compelled to acquiesce in the placing of a reservoir in the middle of valuable buildings which he had erected, and, considering the very large interests involved, it was deemed necessary that he should be so treated. Of course, he got full compensation, but still there was the hardship. A case might arise in which a house stands in such a position that, in order for a town planning scheme to be effective it should

    231
    be taken away. The whole question, to my mind, is this. Is the scheme really of public utility? If that be answered in the affirmative, then, it may be asked, are the persons whose property stand in the way of the carrying out to be reasonably, properly, and fully indemnified for the loss which they may sustain? I am perfectly prepared to go the length of saying that. in the few cases where buildings have to be demolished, they should be demolished provided there is a proper scheme of compensation, but I shall feel bound to vote for the Amendment unless the President of the Local Government Board is able to say that he will consider, with an open mind, Amendments with regard to the compensation scheme, and that he will withdraw from this Bill the really monstrous proposition which could not possibly stand discussion, except under the guillotine, that the Local Government Board itself should fix the price to be paid to the persons grievously injured without any right of appeal. I am really amazed that our representations in this matter have not been more favourably met ere this. I earnestly desire to point out that the good feeling with which this Bill—or rather, many parts of it—has been received throughout the whole country, is being grievously imperilled by provisions which, I quite agree, are unusual as well as very drastic, in respect of compensation. I appeal, in the strongest way, to the right hon. Gentleman to give some reasonable satisfaction to those who feel so very strongly on this point.
    Mr. BURNS: Before we come to the terms of compensation under this Bill, or any suggested modification which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cave) may construe as an improvement, I think we ought roughly to agree on matters of fact. Later on the question of compensation will be raised both by myself and by the Attorney-General, and we shall respond to the invitations tendered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover-square (Mr. Lyttelton). But I repeat we must deal with facts before we come to the question of compensation. May I put this to the House? Suppose a private owner wishes to improve house property; he is able to dispossess, evict, and demolish buildings occupied by people on a large tract of what may be deemed to be undeveloped land. Or take the case of a railway company. It may, for some public purpose, wish to acquire
    232
    a property upon which there are a number of buildings held by leaseholders and freeholders and occupied by tenants. The company will come to this House and ask for powers to acquire that property, for, presumably, public purposes, and it will be allowed to dispossess, evict, and demolish; and, as a rule, the consideration given to the tenants in these cases is covered by a grant of from 30s. to £5, to cover the expense of removing the furniture. We do not intend to follow that procedure under this Act. Let me put this case to the hon. Gentleman opposite. If the houses in the district proposed to be acquired were insanitary, they could be pulled down and a minimum amount of compensation given to the owner. That would be done in the interests of public health and of the sanitation of the area. If the owner were unwilling that they should be pulled down, the local authority could promote either a Provisional Order or a Public Act, and take possession of the property. What is it we are proposing? It is that the local authority shall be empowered, for the purposes-of public benefit, to pursue the line of least resistance for the community. If it wants to carry out a town planning scheme, on a certain tract of mainly undeveloped land—in many cases agricultural land—with a few buildings intervening, the local authority is to have the power, in the interests of the community as a whole, to acquire sheds, broken-down farm buildings and other erections hardly worth any consideration. It does seem to me it would be cracking the nut with a Nasmyth steam hammer to declare that the bothy, the tool shed, the pigsty, or the derelict farm building should be made the subject of proceedings in a court of law, when a process which I am convinced would be equally just might be adopted by the appointment of an arbitrator by the Local Government Board to fix the amount of compensation. The Local Government Board itself, under this Act, is to have the power to determine the price, or to appoint an arbitrator, which in some cases it would do. It does seem ridiculous that in order to acquire these buildings we should resort to a costly and tortuous process altogether disproportionate to the object to be attained. We cannot accept the Amendment, and we do not think that the question of compensation should be brought up at this moment.
    Viscount MORPETH: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be able to

    233
    get certain elementary facts into his head. I agree with the President of the Local Government Board, as well as with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover-square, that this policy of town planning can only be a sham unless you have power to clear away the buildings which prevent its being made effective, and which will enable the substitution of straight and suitable roads for narrow, winding lanes. The right hon. Gentleman has said that we must take things in their right order, and must deal with facts first and compensation afterwards. In my opinion that is not the right order. I may be willing to sell a horse, but the first question is, what price I am going to get.
    Mr. BURNS: Am I to give compensation on the terms for a good horse when as a matter of fact the animal is spavined and broken-kneed?
    Viscount MORPETH: I would make no contract with the right hon. Gentleman to sell him a horse until I knew something about the price he is going to offer me, and it is not likely I would bind myself to sell the animal to him if he is to be the arbitrator to fix the price. That is a most extraordinary proposal. It is a new sense in which to present the term "arbitrator." It is a sense peculiar, I should say, to the right hon. Gentleman. No other person would accept it. I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman is totally unable to appreciate elementary facts.
    For weeks last Session we were trying to drive them into his head. We have also been trying to do it this Session, but yet he seems to think it is sufficient for him to say, "I am convinced." When he has said that he apparently holds that we should drop our opposition altogether. He says, "I am convinced myself that the Local Government Board will be a fair and just court." I have no doubt he is so convinced, but the public are not, and the right hon. Gentleman is bound to produce something more than his own convictions. I would willingly vote with him against the Amendment if he would give us some assurance that he will meet us not merely with an open mind or with sympathy, but give us some definite assurance that if we vote against this Amendment we shall have established some court which we can trust, and which will not itself be a party to the transaction. This seems to me to be a plunge from the old system to which we have been accustomed in these Western countries into Oriental habits which I hope will never become acclimatised here. Unless the right hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance that he will consider this question of compensation, which I assure him is not the least but the first consideration, I shall be compelled to vote for the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 49.

    Division No. 561.]

    AYES.

    [6.15 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Glover, Thomas

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Barnes, G. N.

    Crean, Eugene

    Gulland, John W.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Crooks, William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Beale, W. P.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Cullinan, J.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Hazleton. Richard

    Bright, J. A.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Elibank, Master of

    Higham, John Sharp

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Hedge, John

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Falconer, J.

    Hogan, Michael

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Ferens, T. R

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Hudson, Walter

    Clough, William

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Jackson, R. S.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Joyce, Michael

    Nolan, Joseph

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Lambert, George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Snowden, P.

    Lamont, Norman

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    O'Malley, William

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Summerbell, T.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Paul, Herbert

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Lundon, T.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Pointer, J.

    Tomkinson, James

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Radford, G. H.

    Verney, F. W.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Vivian, Henry

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Waring, Walter

    M'Callum, John M.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Rees, J. D.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Massie, J.

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Robinson, S.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Mond, A.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Winfrey, R.

    Morrell, Philip

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Wood, T. M'Kinnen

    Morse, L. L.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Young, Samuel

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Muldoon, John

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Myer, Horatio

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Napier, T. B.

    Sheehy, David

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Stanier, Beville

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Valentia, Viscount

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Fell, Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Younger, George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Forster, Henry William

    Oddy, John James

    Foster, P. S.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cave and Sir F. Banbury.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Mr. CAVEmoved, in Sub-section (7), to leave out the words at the end, "And the decision of the Local Government Board, whether land is likely to be used for building purposes or not, shall be final."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to leave out the words which require the Local Government Board to decide, without appeal, whether land is likely to be used for building purposes or not. This is only one of a large number of powers given to the Board under this Bill, and I do want to call attention to the fact, that throughout the Bill the whole decision of almost every point that can arise under this enactment is given to this Government
    236
    Department. I tried to make a list of powers given to the Local Government Board under this Bill, but it was very difficult to be sure or not whether one had included them all. But let me enumerate only a few, that the Committee may see in what position we are going to be placed by the Bill. First, the Board may authorise the preparation of a scheme, and if the local authority do not want one, the Board may compel the authority to frame a scheme under Clause 60. Then the Board may decide under this Clause whether land is likely to be used for building or not. This they may decide in the face of the opposition of the owner of the land,

    237
    and they may say that it is likely to be used for that purpose. Then the Board may approve the scheme, amend it, or reject it. The Board may also prescribe a number of provisions to be included in the scheme, including the closing of highways and the suspension of statutes; they may make regulations as to procedure; they may authorise the authority to act upon the scheme in face of the opposition of the owner; without any order of a court they may proceed to pull down buildings, and the Board may decide, without appeal, what compensation is to be paid to the owner for land, or what contribution is to be made by him. They may give power of compulsory purchase, and may enforce a scheme when it is made, and in all these matters, as far as I can see, they may act wholly without appeal. Then there is an extraordinary provision in the Bill, that the Board may themselves act as arbitrators in the matter. The effect of this power may be to prevent any court from interfering, even if the Board is believed to have gone beyond its powers.
    There never was such an Act as this passed, and I do not think there was ever such a Bill, and if the Committee assent to it in this form, they are really abrogating the principles which have always guided Parliament in dealing with such matters as this. I am not at all opposed to private property being taken for public purposes, when a fair case is shown, and when the demand is reasonable, but I hold very strongly that the decision ought not to be that of the authority interested, but of some disinterested tribunal. I do not care very much whether it be a Committee of this House or an arbitrator appointed by an independent authority, but I do submit that it is not a wise act to leave all these powers in the hands of the Department which is concerned in pushing the matter through. The Bill enables the Board to say that land is likely to be used for building at a future time, and I agree that if you are going to have town planning somebody must say, but I do suggest, that in case of doubt, the owner shall, if need be, have some sort of recourse to some tribunal, not being the Board itself. Allusion was made yesterday to the provision in the Port of London Act under which an independent person was appointed who was to have the power to say whether the power should be exercised or not. Here, if there is any doubt whether land is likely to be used for building which will come within the scope of the town planning scheme, I think it ought to be entrusted,
    238
    not to the Board, but to some impartial authority, to see whether that is so or not. This is only one case amongst many, and I do not want to dwell upon it, but it seems to me that I have the right to object in this instance to the whole arbitrary power being placed in the hands of the Board.
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. and learned Member said he did not intend to discuss, in connection with this Amendment, the larger question of compensation which we hope to discuss later on. I am agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman upon two statements that he has made. He said in many cases he was in favour of private property being taken for public purposes. That is one of the principles of this Bill. But he went further, and I congratulate him upon it. He said that if town planning was to be a success someone must decide the character of the land and whether it is likely to be built upon or not. Upon these two questions of principle and fact there is no difference between us. The only difference between us, and it keeps cropping up in the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind, is the tribunal to determine the compensation, and the authority which is to decide as to what land shall or shall not be construed as building land. The difference between us can be narrowed down. The hon. and learned Gentleman wants to shift the venue from the Local Government Board to the courts of law.
    Mr. CAVE: Or to an arbitrator.
    Mr. BURNS: That is practically the same thing. The ordinary courts are to appoint an arbitrator, if any, and it is not to be left to the Local Government Board or the arbitrator the Board may appoint. There really is not any difference. If the venue of the whole position was shifted from the Local Government Board to a court of law or to an arbitrator that the court may appoint, then the hon. Member's contention would disappear if I conceded it, but I cannot concede that point. The reason we object to a court is this. A court means Lands Clauses. It means that a court or a jury is to decide, juries to view, judges or magistrates to determine. It means great delay. If you yield the court it will mean counsel and expert witnesses. It will mean a reversal of the process adopted in the Small Holdings Act which we have incorporated in this Bill, and for these reasons we cannot shift the venue from the Local Government Board inquiry, the inspector, and the arbitrator

    239
    or the Board if it acts as an arbitrator. I am afraid if the hon. and learned Gentleman and myself were to discuss this from now until doomsday we should not be able to arrive at a closer agreement than now. That is our view, that it would really destroy the vital principle of this Bill, namely, economy and despatch, an opportunity in 99 cases out of 100 of coming to an agreement without recourse either to law or arbitration at all, through the agency of an inspector and a public inquiry. I appeal to the Committee to decide between the hon. and learned Gentleman and myself, and I ask them to adopt the procedure embodied in this Bill in preference to the old, costly, and cumbrous method which a court means, and which we should have to adopt if we accepted the Amendment.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I am surprised at the speech we have just heard, and I really do not understand it when I put it alongside the previous speech made by the right hon. Gentleman. Ten minutes ago, perhaps, I flatter myself with the idea of getting my vote on the previous Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman said he was going to modify the compensation
    Clauses. Now he has told my hon. and learned Friend he is not going to.
    Mr. BURNS: I told the Committee that what modification or alteration of compensation we were inclined to make we would suggest and we have an Amendment down to Clause 57, which we think goes some way. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the statement I made then is not incompatible with the statement I have now made.
    Mr. CAVE: The President has said more than once that these matters will be decided either by the Board or by an arbitrator appointed by the Board. As I read the Bill there is no provision compelling the Board to refer this matter or the matter of compensation to an arbitrator appointed by the Board or otherwise. It may be determined by the Board itself without reference to anyone. I only rise because the right hon. Gentleman has said twice over that the Bill provides that this matter shall be referred to arbitration. It is not so.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 51.

    Division No. 562.]

    AYES.

    [6.40 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cullinan, J.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Higham, John Sharp

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hodge, John

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hogan, Michael

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Hudson, Walter

    Barnes, G. N.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Duffy, William J.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Beale, W. P.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jackson, R. S.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Elibank, Master of

    Jowett, F. W.

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Joyce, Michael

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Falconer, J.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Lambert, George

    Brooke, Stopford

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lamont, Norman

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Glover, Thomas

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Cleland, J W.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Clough, William

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Gulland, John W.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Corbett. C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Massie, J.

    Crean, Eugene

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Crooks, William

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Radford, G. H.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Mond, A.

    Rainy, A. Holland

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Summerbell, T.

    Morrell, Philip

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Morse, L. L.

    Reddy, M.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Muldoon, John

    Rees, J. D.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Myer, Horatio

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Tomkinson, James

    Nannetti. Joseph P.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Napier, T. B.

    Robinson, S.

    Verney, F. W.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Vivian, Henry

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Waring, Walter

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Waterlow, D. S.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Williamson, Sir A.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Paul, Herbert

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Winfrey, R.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Young, Samuel

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Pointer, J.

    Snowden, P.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Stanier, Beville

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Talbot, Rt. Hen. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Valentia, Viscount

    Fell, Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Younger, George

    Forster, Henry William

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Foster, P. S.

    Oddy, John James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Cave and Viscount Morpeth.

    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I cannot vote for the Clause as it stands. The President of the Local Government Board said a short time ago, in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) that two principles of the Bill were accepted by my hon. and learned Friend. These were that private property can be taken for public purposes, and that somebody must be there to decide whether it was a proper case for taking land under the powers conferred by the Bill. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could be very serious when he made that statement. It is part of the general scheme under which we live in this country that land in private ownership can always be taken, under proper conditions, for public purposes. It follows from that that some tribunal or other must decide
    242
    whether land is to be taken and what price is to be given for the land when it is taken. Therefore these two principles are not principles which are specially involved in this Bill. But there are several principles involved in it. The principle to which I object in this Clause is that the whole matter is handed over to the Local Government Board absolutely as regards the question whether land shall be taken, what land shall be taken, and what price shall be given. That seems to me an intolerable way of passing legislation, and it is for that reason that I cannot vote for the Clause as it stands.
    I want to say a word as to why the Local Government Board, or any Government Department, is not competent for such duties as these. In the first place, I do not know any reason for supposing that the Local Government Board is competent to carry out such difficult work as town planning. I am not aware of any

    243
    Department in the Local Government Board which has made a special study of this question. It is a matter which is comparatively novel, and there are few persons in this country who have any special knowledge of it at all. For my part, I should be very loath to entrust duties of that kind to the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides. There is another objection to the Clause. It is not only that the Local Government Board has to decide what land shall be taken; but it is to give a variety of decisions of a judicial character as to compensation, damages, and so on. I think it is perfectly clear that there is no principle which is more important in the Government of this country than that you ought to have complete separation between the judicial and the administrative powers. I do not believe that there is any civilised country which has disregarded that principle which has not suffered. In the few cases in this country where we have entrusted judicial work to Government Departments, it has been almost uniformly badly done. The truth is that the judicial and administrative qualities are absolutely different in character, and the Government, if they considered recent history, will see that Government Departments are not competent for such work. It would not be in order now to discuss the Swansea case, which is the most recent example of an administrative department undertaking judicial functions. All the fears which some of us felt in the Grand Committee have been more than confirmed by the action of the Education Department in that case. Exactly what we anticipated took place then. What we anticipated would take place in future was there exemplified by what actually happened. That is the second reason why these powers should not be entrusted to a Government Department.
    There is another reason. The right hon. Gentleman had the courage to say he did not wish to entrust any of these powers to a judicial tribunal—not necessarily a court of law—because it would mean great delay and great expense. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the Local Government Board is in a position to reproach anyone for delay? I thought it was a perfectly well known fact that there is no Department in the whole Government which is more open to the charge of gross delay in its administrative duties than the Local Government Board. I
    244
    have had some little experience in the-matter, and I think everybody will tell you that with the Local Government Board the delays are very serious and very prejudicial to the administration of the Department. I was talking the other day to a gentleman of great experience, and he confirmed ms in the general impression that it is a most unsatisfactory body to have dealings with in any administrative matter. The right hon. Gentleman said he was anxious to follow the Small' Holdings example. The Small Holdings Act has been to some extent well administered, and that has been so to the extent that the Department which has had the administration of the Act has departed from the ordinary methods by which the Local Government Board acts. Personally I think it is much too early to say whether that Act is going to prove a success or not; but I have the greatest doubt whether the party opposite will find any reason to congratulate themselves upon the passing of that Act into law. But whether it is a good Act or not, we have here to deal with a totally different kind of thing. This is not a question of acquiring plots of land suitable for small holdings. It is a matter of town planning, which is one of great difficulty. For the carrying out of this, part of the Bill, I think you must establish' some kind of body of Commissioners or a separate Department of the Government, created for the purpose. You must man that body with the greatest experts you can find in the country. There are very few who have knowledge of this particular department of social work. To them you. may entrust undoubtedly some of the administrative powers which you entrust to the Local Government Board, and, above all, if you are going to entrust them with any judicial powers, you must free them altogether from connection with the Government Department itself. They must act altogether independently of the whole Parliamentary and political machine. That is an essential condition of impartial decisions m judicial questions; and unless that is done you will never get impartiality, and you will never get what is quite as important, namely, the confidence of the people with whom you deal. Unless you get the confidence, not only of landowners but of everybody connected with the subject, none of your schemes can possibly succeed. It is a matter of exceeding difficulty and novelty, and you want all the assistance you can get from private individuals to make it a success. I cannot see

    245
    any hope of success in the scheme foreshadowed in this Clause, and, therefore, I will be compelled to vote against it.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I have heard with some surprise, and also, if I may say so, with some amusement, the suggestion of the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) that, instead of having a Government Department to carry out the provisions of this Act, there should be constituted what he vaguely described as a body of Commissioners of some kind, to whom might be entrusted the powers given by this measure to the Local Government Board. I have had on previous occasions in the performance of my duty to stand here and defend the appointment of a body of Commissioners under the Small Holdings Act. I remember the speeches which were made then from the other side of the House—I cannot charge my memory whether the Noble Lord took part in the Debates—in which the appointment of Commissioners was denounced as though it were a revolution in our Administration. The history of revolutionary movements was ransacked for parallels to the body of Commissioners we then proposed to appoint. What were these Commissioners to do? They were to be constituted by some partisan Government—I am afraid that for the rest of our time any Government in this country will be a partisan Government—and they would have a roving commission all over the country. They were to have unlimited powers in taking property upon their own inquiry and according to their own discretion. That was denounced as a most unconstitutional procedure. What was said against it? We were told that the alternative to the Commission was a Government Department. The Noble Lord opposite is a great constitutional authority, but I do not think he spoke upon the basis of constitutional authority when he made his observations to-night about the separation between judicial and administrative functions. It is the first principle of sound constitutionalism, but he ought to have given us some little idea of what he meant by judicial functions and what he meant by administrative functions, how he defines them, distinguishes between them, and how he allocates the judicial and administrative branches their proper functions? Let us look at this Clause, and see what are the judicial functions which the Noble Lord thinks it will be dangerous to allow a Government Department to exercise. There is under Sub-section (2) the duty cast upon the Department of authorising a local
    246
    authority to prepare a scheme. If they think that there is not aprima facie case. for a town planning scheme, it is for them to check the discretion of the local authority by seeing that the powers given are properly exercised. Does the Noble Lord suggest that our court of law is the proper tribunal to decide whether or not A, B, or C—
    Lord R. CECIL: No doubt I did not make myself clear. But what I pointed out was that the Local Government Board were entrusted with powers which are certainly administrative, and also with powers-which are judicial. They have, first of all, to decide what land ought to be taken, and then they have to decide what price should be given, which has always hitherto been treated as a clearly judicial function.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I am dealing with what the Noble Lord said as to the confusion of the judicial and, the administrative functions. That was the proposition which I made. I said: Where are the judicial functions here which are being improperly given to an administrative authority? The first of the functions given is that of deciding whether or not aprimâ facie case for the scheme was made out. Is that the kind of inquiry you would put before a court, whether a court of judges or jurors? I hope the Noble Lord will forgive me for saying that it is preposterous to suggest such a matter. The next judicial function is whether or not a piece of land already built on ought or ought not to be included in a given scheme. That is a matter turning entirely upon local considerations. You could not have a question more entirely and exclusively administrative. If administrative functions are to have any meaning at all this certainly should be classed as being among them. The next is, deciding whether or not any land is likely to be built upon. Is that proper for a court? In all these sub-sections here the functions ascribed to the Local Government Board are in every case, properly speaking, administrative. There is not one of them which any practical man would describe as judicial, or which should go to a court of law. Therefore the somewhat pretentious proposition about the separation of administrative and judicial functions, while it may be good as a general statement of constitutional law, is certainly very inapplicable to the Clause under consideration. The Noble Lord said that the Local Government Board is not qualified to work out town planning, which

    247
    is a new scheme. I should think that the Local Government Board has more experience in dealing with these problems, and is much better qualified to deal with them in their initial stage than any body of gentlemen selected by a partisan Government, having possibly no experience whatever on the subject matter at all. It is not easy to suggest, and certainly the Noble Lord has not succeeded in suggesting any alternative authority to that which the Bill provides.
    Sir JOHN DICKSON-POYNDER: With the major portion of the remarks of the Noble Lord I am not in agreement. They have been fully answered by my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Robson). The Noble Lord objects to the Clause because of what he deems a confusion of judicial and administrative functions in the powers given to the Local Government Board. I am quite in sympathy with the idea that the Local Government Board should be the Department in authority to administer these provisions. The reason I have risen is, if possible, to elicit from the President of the Local Government Board some further information as to what extent the Local Government Board is to undertake these functions, and what is the staff with which it is to carry them out. This Bill proposes to impose on the Local Government Board a variety of new duties very onerous and very difficult. One has only to read the clauses which passed last night to see that not only the duty of control, but also the duty of initiation is to be found in many of the clauses. Therefore, it would almost be impossible for the Local Government Board as an ordinary Department to carry out that work efficiently. I am quite convinced myself that if the work to which I have referred is to be carried out, in addition to the town planning which we are now adding, there must be something in the nature of a distinct staff of gentlemen whose time will be exclusively confined to that work—of course under the full jurisdiction of the President of the Local Government Board. But if it is left in the ordinary course to the Department in the same way that these other multifarious duties are now left, I cannot but feel that there will be great delay, delay for which I do not blame the Local Government Board, because their duties have been multiplied to such an extent that no Department, unless it is properly segregated in its duties, could properly undertake all the work
    248
    efficiently. Now in this very technical work of town planning, where the scheme of the local authority is in some instances to be checked and controlled by the Local Government Board, where in other cases the Local Government Board will initiate the scheme itself, it does seem almost indispensable that there should be gentlemen of technical knowledge who are employed exclusively in this work and become experts. I think that the Local Government Board is the most behindhand of all the public Departments as regards its efficient segregation of work. They have it at the Admiralty, at the Home Office it is increasing, and in the War Office and in all the other great Departments you have special services handed over to a special staff or special Department. I cannot conceive any work in the future which, if it is to be carried out sufficiently and efficiently, demands a special staff more urgently than this work of town planning, coupled with looking after public health in towns. I would ask my right hon. Friend to say whether some definite establishment of the staff, with their own Department, will be made with the view to carrying out this work.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I should like to reinforce the demand just made by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir J. Dickson-Poynder) asking the President of the Local Government Board for a statement as to the means by which he proposes to work this Bill. I agree with the Noble Lord that there is a confusion, not only in this Clause but in the whole Bill, of administrative and judicial duties. I agree that that confusion is not only unconstitutional, but disastrous, and is likely to bring into dislike, and in some instances even into contempt, a Bill which in many respects contains most admirable features; but I still hope, owing to the representations which have been made, that when we get to the portions of the Bill which deal with the Local Government Board in its judicial aspect some provision will be made of the nature required. From recent practical experience, I am quite convinced that if the Local Government Board do not add to the present staff persons of skill and experience in this matter, this Bill will fail. Having concerned myself with town planning matters for some two years, and having been very familiar with the conditions under which these schemes are worked, I am convinced that the subject is only in its infancy in this country; that very few people really know anything about it in a technical, expert sense, and

    249
    that if the large municipalities throughout the country are anxious to put forward town planning schemes, they will attach to themselves most of the experts, and it will be absolutely necessary for the Local Government Board, if they are to act au a tribunal upon these administrative matters, and if they are to decide such highly technical questions as are involved in this Bill—planning, laying out roads, deciding the manner in which towns should be planned, the style of building, and hundreds of other questions of that kind—obviously the persons to do that work must be very highly skilled. Otherwise their guidance and control and their appellate functions would fall into absolute contempt. I do not say this in the slightest degree out of disrespect to the Local Government Board, because its permanent officials are admirable members, as we all know; but I do not think they would claim for themselves that they have had practical experience in this matter, and I do not think that anybody who is acquainted with the working of the Department would deny that you cannot possibly have such complicated and very onerous duties put upon the Local Government Board as are imposed by this Act without giving them some extra assistance. Unless you give them that extra assistance the delays of which we have heard will become more and more frequent. Before coming to any conclusion upon this Clause, which does raise generally these very large municipal questions which will be henceforth in the power of the Local Government Board, the House is entitled to some statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to the means which he has devised to enable this Clause to be efficiently executed, and with reasonable despatch.
    Mr. BURNS: The Motion to add this Clause to the Bill has evoked from several speakers criticisms of the plan, the method, the machinery and the personnel, essential to carry out both the housing and town planning portion of this measure. I am impelled by these criticisms to say a word or two in reply. The Noble Lord referred, as he has done frequently in the course of these Debates, to the impropriety of entrusting to an administrative Department those judicial functions necessary for the acquisition of land and for the determination of various processes under both the housing and the town planning portion. Into that I do not intend to go. If he would pardon me I must refer for a moment or two to the suggestion which he made before, I believe last year, that this should
    250
    be divorced entirely from all Government Departments, and if there was to be a Government Department to do it, then, in his opinion—and I notice that this was not uproariously cheered—the Department least qualified to do it is the one over which I preside. The Noble Lord will pardon me if I do not share his view. He objects to a Government Department taking action in this matter at all. May I pcint out that if the Government Department does not do it, and in this country we are governed by Government Departments—
    Lord R. CECIL: Very nearly now.
    Mr. J. BURNS: Subject to the House of Commons: in these administrative matters the House of Commons very wisely gives Government Departments great latitude and discretion. The only alternative in this matter of town planning and housing other than that expressed by the Noble Lord, namely, Commissioners or an ad hoc Commission, is the rule prevailing on the Continent, where the burgomaster,, or the préfet, or the maire arbitrarily exercises very great powers, which he would not suggest that the chairman of the London County Council or the Lord Mayors of Glasgow or Liverpool or London should have. As a matter of fact, the Lord Mayor of London: is rather ruled out. Though the Corporation of the City is embedded in the hearts of the administrative county of London, it is not enshrined there; therefore, its duties are rather small. The Continental plan will not do for this country—the over-burgomaster, the préfet, or the maire. The other point is this: shall we have a Commission? I do not think that a Commission could do this work as well as a Government Department. The Government Department to be entrusted with this work has been for the last seven years in close and harmonious co-operation with the local authorities on whom will devolve the initiation of these schemes. They also have had considerable experience of works under private and public Acts; and they have been in close contact with private owners whose property has been secured either by agreement or compulsion by the local authorities. The Local Government Board have continuity of experience, and knowledge both of private owners and of local authorities, and, in my judgment, they, are eminently qualified for this particular work. That being so, why does the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) object to the Local

    251
    Government Board? He is entirely wrong when he thinks that that body is as dilatory as he suggests it to be, considering the enormous amount of work which it has to do. I really wonder that it gets through the amount of work it does. But that is no argument against the Local Government Board doing this particular work. I will tell you what it is an argument for—and it is a matter which the Government are generally considering—that every Department should have knocked from it certain administrative duties that are more relevant to other Departments, and that there should be an interchange of duties and functions, with the result that all the various Departments will be able to do a larger amount of work, and that their machinery will be segregated and co-ordinated better than at present. If there are any matters which the Local Government Board ought to attend to, they are housing, public health, and town planning. I will give the Noble Lord one reason: The Local Government Board every year either sanctions, supervises, or controls in some form or another 10 or 12 millions of money for the maintenance and making of roads, widening of roads, and so forth. The making of the roads, the acquisition of land, and the maintenance of these vast public works are duties akin to many of those that will accrue under town planning. I only give that as one of many instances. We think that, given a Government Department, the Local Government Board is better able to do this work than an ad hoc body which would not have that relationship with the local authorities which is possessed by the Local Government Board. Such a body would have to begin anew, and it would probably have the local authorities against it for a considerable time. Therefore we think the line of least resistance is that which is offered by the Local Government Board doing this particular work.
    When pensions were introduced into this country by the Government I can remember that a statement was made similar to that which we now hear. It was said, "Do not entrust the administration of pensions to the Local Government Board. They will not know how to do it, and if they get it to do they will do it very badly. It will be a very slovenly piece of work." How have these prophecies been justified? Not at all. We were told that the Local Government Board was overworked, and that if we had this enormous piece of work
    252
    to do it would cost a lot of money; that the officers would not be able to do it properly, and that the whole thing would be tainted with pauperism, and so forth. What is the result? For nearly a year we have had the administrative duty of granting pensions to 400 thousand aged men and women. It has been done, by universal admission, very well by our officers, and we have only had to ask the Treasury for £800 more than last year, for hearing something like 12 or 13 thousand appeals. I can assure the House that the zeal shown by the Department in regard to housing and to roads in the past will be equally shown, given the machinery, which we intend to secure, with regard to town planning.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: What is the machinery?
    Mr. BURNS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks what the machinery is, and the same question has been asked by the hon. Baronet for Chippenham (Sir John Dickson-Poynder). I can only tell the hon. Baronet and the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the staff necessary for the proper working of town planning will be an adequate one, and will be able to carry out the duties to the highest limit. But particularly do I say that guardedly, in view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself says, and says very truly, that the number of men qualified to do town planning work in this country is relatively small. In my judgment they could be counted on the fingers of one hand. There are not more than five or six men, I believe, who have the necessary qualifications for doing town planning work adequately, scientifically, reasonably and economically. The Local Government Board will do their best to secure the services of the most highly qualified man or men for this particular work, and the hon. Baronet will do me the credit of admitting that, ever since I have been President of the Local Government Board, in the selection of officers I have never allowed personal or political or any other considerations, except fitness and proper qualification, to guide my choice, and those considerations will guide me in the appointment of any engineer, surveyor or architect for this particular work. I shall select the best possible men I can secure. I can assure the House—and they may rely upon it—that I intend to rigorously exclude, possibly 99 out of every 100, who think themselves town planning experts.

    253
    So much for town planning. Then the hon. Baronet asked what about housing. Since we have been able to get into our new office at the corner of Whitehall, we have succeeded in improving enormously the classification and segregation of the work of the Department. I think I can say that both axe sufficiently important to have a separate Department to themselves, and, as I did in Grand Committee upstairs and here on the second reading, I can assure the House that with regard to town planning and housing we shall have both machinery and staff adequate to carry out this important work. I think myself that the ideal body would be a sub-department for this work, and probably the ideal sub-department would consist of a medical man, who would make a special study of housing in relation both to public health and town planning; an architect who, it would be generally agreed, should be appointed; and, thirdly, an expert in town planning of the highest capacity we can possibly secure. When this Bill becomes law—apart from what I have now suggested—I think it will be necessary for us to adopt some medium—perhaps a new journal issued by the Local Government Board—lay means of which local authorities would get regular information with regard to housing, town planning, and kindred schemes, in such a way that it would create, so to speak, a spirit of emulation between them to do the best they possibly could for the interests of their respective towns. Local authorities would find it a very desirable thing to have information ready to their hand in regard to the work under this Bill. It is information which they have a right to expect, and which in other matters they get from Government Departments, including the Board of Trade, the Board of Agriculture, and the Local Government Board itself. The House may rely upon it that the Local
    Government Board, which has had the courage to initiate for the first time a measure of this kind, on which it has been engaged upon for a considerable period, will also see that the means by which it is to be carried out are not starved, and will be determined that the Department is adequately equipped with men and machinery, the essential organisation, which will enable this Bill to be carried out, as I trust, with advantage to all the towns of the country and with credit to our national history in these matters. Despite the wave of depreciation of everything English and of everything that has been conducted by Englishmen which we have experienced, I believe we lead in the matter of sanitary homes, and, I hope, in the future that we will lead all other countries of the world in the matter of town planning.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I would like to draw attention to the fact that we in this country are governed by Department. [An Hon. MEMBER: "No."] That is what the right hon. Gentleman said, and it is because we are coming to that, and because I am afraid that this Clause will tend in that direction, that I shall vote against it. The right hon. Gentleman is going to appoint an architect, a medical man, and somebody else, but I did not hear him make any reference to the point of economy. I hope he will do so, because I now understand that he is going to run a newspaper. The vista of expenditure he is opening up in this Bill is very alarming to those of us who really do think that a little economy should be exercised, and that we should not pursue every phantom which presents itself to the philanthropic mind, but should have some regard to what the cost will be to the ratepayers.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 54.

    Division No. 563.]

    AYES.

    [7.29 p.m.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bright, J. A.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Brodie, H. C.

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Burns, Rt. Hen. John

    Crean, Eugene

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Crooks, William

    Barnard, E. B.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Cullinan, J.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Beale, W. P.

    Clough, William

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Clynes, J. R

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lundon, T.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott-(Bradford)

    Duffy, William J.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Robinson, S.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Elibank, Master of

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Falconer, J.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Ferens, T. R.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    M'Callum, John M.

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Maddison, Frederick

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Massie, J.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Glendinning; R. G.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Glover, Thomas

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Mond, A.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Snowden, P.

    Gulland, John W.

    Morrell, Philip

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Morse, L. L.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Muldoon, John

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Myer, Horatio

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Summerbell, T.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Napier, T. B.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Nolan, Joseph

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Henry, Charles S.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Tomkinson, James

    Hodge, John

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Verney, F. W.

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Vivian, Henry

    Hudson, Walter

    Paul, Herbert

    Walters, John Tudor

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Waring, Walter

    Jackson, R. S.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Pointer, J.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Radford, G. H.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Winfrey, R.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Lambert, George

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Young, Samuel

    Lamont, Norman

    Reddy, M.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Lehmann, R. C

    Rees, J. D.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Foster, P. S.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bowles, G, Stewart

    Gretton, John

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Carlile, E, Mildred

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hills, J. W.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Cave, George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanier, Beville

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Valentia, Viscount

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Fell, Arthur

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Oddy, John James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    F. Banbury and Lord R. Cecil.

    And, it being after Half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, in pur-
    256
    suance of the Order of the House of 15th June, successively to put forthwith the

    257
    Questions necessary to dispose of the Clauses to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the clock this day, and on any Amendments thereto moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.

    CLAUSE 54.—(Contents of Town Planning Schemes.)
    (1) The Local Government Board may prescribe a set of general provisions (or separate sets of general provisions adapted for areas of any special character) for carrying out the general objects of town planning schemes, and in particular for dealing with the matters set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act and the general provisions, or set of general provisions appropriate to the area for which a town planning scheme is made, shall take effect as part of every scheme, except so far as provision is made by the scheme as approved by the Board for the variation or exclusion of any of those provisions.
    (2) Special provisions shall in addition be inserted in every town planning scheme defining the area to which the scheme is to apply and the authority who are to be responsible for enforcing the observance, or for the execution, of the scheme (in this Part of this Act referred to as the responsible authority), and providing for any matters which may be dealt with by general provisions and otherwise supplementing the general provisions, and also for dealing with any special circumstances or contingencies for which adequate provision is not made by the general provisions, and for suspending, as far as necessary for the proper carrying out of the scheme, any statutory enactments, bye-laws, regulations, or other provisions, under whatever authority made, which are in operation in the area included in the scheme.
    (3) Where land included in a town planning scheme is in the area of more than one local authority, the responsible authority may be, as the Local Government Board directs, one of those local authorities, or for certain purposes of the scheme one local authority and for certain purposes another local authority, or a joint body constituted specially for the purpose by the scheme, and all necessary provisions may be made by the scheme for constituting the joint body and giving them the necessary powers and duties.
    Provided that, except with the consent of the London County Council, no other local authority shall prepare or be responsible for enforcing the observance or for the execution of a town planning scheme under this Part of this Act as respects any land in the county of London.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "supplementing" ["and otherwise supplementing"], insert the words "excluding or varying."—[Mr. Burns.]
    At the end of Sub-section (2) insert: "Provided that where the scheme contains provisions suspending any enactment contained in a public general Act the scheme shall not come into force unless a draft thereof has been laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than forty days during the Session of Parliament, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those forty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the proposed suspension no further proceedings shall be taken on the draft without prejudice to the making of any new scheme."—[Mr. Burns.]
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 58.

    Division No. 564.]

    AYES.

    [7.38 p.m.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Crooks, William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Brooke, Stopford

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Cullinan, J.

    Asquith. Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Clough, William

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Clynes, J R.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Duffy, William J.

    Beale, W. P.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Collins, Sir Win. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Conden, Thomas Joseph

    Elibank, Master of

    Benn. Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Falconer, J.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Bright, J. A.

    Crean, Eugene

    Ferens, T. R.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Glendinning, R. G.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Glover, Thomas

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Maddison, Frederick

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Massie, J.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Gulland, John W.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sheehy, David

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mond, A.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Morrell, Philip

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Morse, L. L.

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Muldoon, John

    Snowden, P.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Myer, Horatio

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Napier, T. B.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Henry, Charles S.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nolan, Joseph

    Summerbell, T.

    Hodge, John

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Hogan, Michael

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Jackson, R. S.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Tomkinson, James

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Paul, Herbert

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Verney, F. W.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Vivian, Henry

    Joyce, Michael

    Pearson W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Waring, Walter

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Pointer, J.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Lambert, George

    Price. Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Lamont, Norman

    Radford, G. H.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Rainy, A. Holland

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Reddy, M.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Winfrey, R.

    Lundon, T.

    Rees, J. D.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Young, Samuel

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Robinson, S.

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Carl Me, E. Hildred

    Hills, J. W.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)'

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Valentia, Viscount

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Fell, Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Younger, George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Nicholson, Wm G. (Petersfield)

    Forster, Henry William

    Oddy, John James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Foster, P. S.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Cave and Mr. Robinson.

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Clauses 55 and 56:
    Question put, "That these Clauses stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 58.

    Division No. 565.]

    AYES.

    [7.47 p.m.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Pickersglil, Edward Hare

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Pointer, J.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Barnard, E. B.

    Henderson, J McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Radford, G. H.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Hodge, John

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Beale, W P.

    Hogan, Michael

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Rees, J. D.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Hudson, Walter

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Jackson, R. S.

    Robinson, S.

    Bright, J. A.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Brodie, H. C.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Bryce, A. Annan

    Jowett, F. W.

    Rogers, F. c. Newman

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Joyce, Michael

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Clough, William

    Lambert, George

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Clynes, J. R.

    Lamont, Norman

    Sheehy, David

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Lundon, T.

    Snowden. P.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Crooks, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Cullinan, J.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Summerbell, T.

    Curran, Peter Francis

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Taylor, Theodore C; Radcliffe)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Tennant, K. J. (Berwickshire)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Thomas. Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Massie, J.

    Thompson. J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Temkinson, James

    Duffy, William J.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Mond, A.

    Verney, F. W.

    Elibank, Master of

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Vivian, Henry

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Morrell, Philip

    Walters, John Tudor

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morse, L. L.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Falconer, James

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Waring, Walter

    Fenwick, Charles

    Muldoon, John

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Myer, Horatio

    Watt, Henry A.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Napier, T. B.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Glover, Thomas

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Winfrey, R.

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Wood, T. M'kinnon

    Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Young, Samuel

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Gulland, John W.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Parker, James (Halifax).

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Paul, Herbert

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Cave, George

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    262

    263

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Stafferdshire)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Forster, Henry William

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Foster, P. S.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Gibbs, G. A (Bristol, West)

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Coulding, Edward Alfred

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Gretton, John

    Oddy, John James

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds.)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Younger, George

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Hay, Hon Claude George

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Hill. Sir Element

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hills, J. W.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Stanier and Mr. Fell.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    CLAUSE 57.—(Compensation in Respect of Property Injuriously Affected by Scheme, etc.)
    (1) Any person whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a town planning scheme shall, if he makes a claim for the purpose within the time (if any) limited by the scheme, not being less than three months after the date when notice of the approval of the scheme is published in the prescribed manner, be entitled to obtain compensation in respect thereof from the responsible authority. Nevertheless no such compensation shall be paid till such time as the loss has actually occurred.
    (2) A person shall not be entitled to claim compensation under this Section on account of any building erected on or contract made, or other thing done with respect to land included in a scheme, after the time at which the application for authority to prepare the scheme was made, or after such other time as the Local Government Board may fix for the purpose:
    Provided that this provision shall not apply as respects any work done before the date of the approval of the scheme for the purpose of finishing a building begun or of carrying out a contract entered into before the application was made.
    (3) Where, by the operation of any town planning scheme, any property is or will be increased in value the responsible authority, if they make a claim for the purpose within the time (if any) limited by the scheme (not being less than three months after the date when notice of the approval of the scheme is first published in the prescribed manner) shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is or will be so increased in value the amount of that increase.
    (4) Any question as to whether any property is injuriously affected or increased in value within the meaning of this Section, and as to the amount and manner of payment (whether by instalments or otherwise)
    264
    of the sum which is to be paid as compensation under this Section or which the responsible authority are entitled to recover from a person whose property is increased in value, shall be determined by the Local Government Board, and the determination of the Board shall be final and conclusive and binding on all persons.
    (5) Any amount due under this Section as compensation to a person aggrieved from a local authority, or to a local authority from a person whose property is increased in value, may be recovered summarily as a civil debt.
    (6) Where a town planning scheme is revoked by an Order of the Local Government Board under this Act, any person who has incurred expenditure for the purpose of complying with the scheme shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with this Section in so far as any such expenditure is rendered abortive by reason of the revocation of the scheme.
    Amendment made: "To leave out from Sub-section (1) the words, "Nevertheless no such compensation shall be paid till such time as the loss has actually occurred."—[Mr. Burns.]
    Lord ROBERT CECIL(for Mr. Cave)moved to leave out from Sub-section (2) all the words after "made" ["application for authority to prepare the scheme was made"] to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words "if in the opinion of the Court such work was done with a view to obtaining or increasing compensation under this Act."
    This is a most remarkable provision, meaning that an owner is only to be entitled to compensation in respect of a building erected before the application for authority to prepare the scheme was made. I do not understand why the limitation should be fixed in that way. It appears to me that in any case it ought not to be so fixed unless there is some ground for thinking that what has been done has been

    265
    done with a view to increasing the compensation. If it has been done genuinely for the purpose of developing the property I do not see why compensation should not be paid in that case as well as in the other.
    Mr. BURNS: I thought that the Noble Lord shared our view in Committee that equal justice would be done to all parties concerned if our Sub-section prevailed. He wishes now, however, by this Amendment to modify the wording of the Sub-section. I thought the Noble Lord agreed in Standing Committee that it was necessary, when a town planning scheme had been decided upon, that after an inquiry had been held, and the works authorised by that inquiry were commenced, compensation for dispossession should begin at a certain date, and that after that fixed date, which it is to be assumed the inquiry would settle as reasonably as possible to all parties concerned, it was not fair that works contemplated, but unknown to the parties interested in the inquiry, not actually begun, but subsequently developed, should get an extra amount of compensation to which they were not entitled. It seems to me that if the Noble Lord wishes this experiment to succeed, as, notwithstanding the various differences we have had about method, tribunal, and so forth, I think he does, it is advisable for us so to safeguard all the parties that one who goes behind the backs of local authorities, the neighbours, and the other parties affected, should not subsequently to the date mutually agreed upon superimpose a more or less fictitious claim for compensation.
    Lord R. CECIL: No.
    Mr. BURNS: It may result in that, but we think we safeguard against such fraudulent attempts by keeping in these words.
    8.0 P.M.
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has appreciated the Amendment. Perhaps it was my fault in not having made it clear. He will see that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston proposes that where the work is done to increase the compensation it shall not be given. It is another matter where it is done merely in the ordinary course of development. I cannot think that anything the right hon. Gentleman has said really deals with the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend. Surely it is right that you should protect those who merely use their land in the ordinary way, without intending to increase their compensation?
    266
    I should have thought that was a case that ought to be provided for, and I should have thought that the words of my hon. and learned Friend would provide for that case.
    Mr. BURNS: The Noble Lord has shifted his venue.
    Mr. STEWART BOWLES: I have listened to what has been said. When T first read this Sub-section (2) I could not really understand in the least what the object of it was. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the real object—as I understand him—of these words is to prevent a man, after the scheme of planning starts on his land, going to work and starting new buildings, or some colourable imitation, or fraudulent device to increase the compensation. That, of course, will really be unreasonable, and would be unfair. It is quite the proper thing to prevent it. That case is entirely met, it appears to me, by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston. He says, if after you have made your scheme the owner of land begins to do work which, in the opinion of the court—it says court—hut I should imagine the learned Gentleman would not insist upon a court-is fraudulent, he should not be entitled to compensation. Nothing less than fraud is to be provided against, and some colourable dealing with the land is not to entitle the man to get compensation. While fraud is to be amply provided against by the Amendment, where the man bonâ fide has gone on developing his land after the date at which the application is to be sent in, or on some other arbitrary date to be fixed by the Local Government Board, you should not, by this Sub-section—as if it is not amended you certainly will do—deprive that man of compensation, which quite clearly, and bonâ fide, he is entitled to.
    Mr. CARLILE: One other consideration in connection with this matter has not been referred to. Not only should the local authority be protected from fraud, but the local property owners should also be protected from gratuitous interference with their work by alleged applications, or actual applications, being made. It is quite conceivable that the local authority may have a property owner in the neighbourhood who is not very popular, and that they, when he is carrying out certain work in the development of his estate, may suddenly inform him, "We have sent in an application to the Local Government

    267
    Board to schedule certain areas with a view to town planning." Immediately, under the words of the Clause as it now stands, the owner of the property would have to cease any alterations which he was carrying on. The proposal to make the application might not be really seriously entertained at all. It might be so unreasonable in its nature that when it was submitted to the Local Government Board it would immediately be refused. Notwithstanding that, as the Sub-section now reads, if an application is sent in, however unreasonable, however vexatious the sending in of it might have been, the property owner is not entitled to proceed any further with the operations for the development of his estate; he must immediately cease. So that I think, if on the one hand the local authority is to be protected—and I think it is abundantly clear that it is protected by the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend—I think it is only reasonable that the local proprietors should also be protected, either against alleged or actual vexatious applications being made for propositions which probably would never be entertained if submitted to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. BURNS: Notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Bowles) with regard to the question of the court, the question of court does arise in the words of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kingston—"if in the opinion of the court such work was done with a view to obtaining or increasing compensation under this Act." That does remit in such a case to a court of law the question of determining the fact, or otherwise, whether certain work at a certain date was executed for the purpose of getting what I think lawyers term ex post facto compensation. The hon. Member for Norwood must read in conjunction with what I have said the remaining portion of Sub-section (2), which to some extent meets his objection: "Provided that this provision shall not apply as respects any work done before the date of the approval of the scheme for the purpose of finishing a building begun, or of carrying out a contract entered into before the application was made." May I illustrate it in this way? Supposing a person in the inquiry made is found to have commenced a large house which probably he cannot finish till September or October. It is convenient for the parties that the inquiry shall be held in June, and it is de-
    268
    termined that 1st July shall be the date agreed upon. It is obviously fair to the man who cannot complete his contract until September or October—work that he has bonâ fide commenced, and not with a view of getting compensation—should get what he is entitled to. That man, in that case, would have a right to claim, and under the Bill we think he would secure the amount of compensation which he fairly was entitled to. What we have to guard against in this matter is not only the case pointed out, that the local authorities under the Clause are amply protected against the owners, but that the owners ought to be similarly protected against the local authorities. In this matter the Local Government Board in their inquiry would not differentiate between the two parties, but would try and see that the conditions were fair, and that the compensation was proper before or after the agreed date, as the circumstances might determine. If between now and a later date it dawns upon me that this was not altogether the most felicitous way of putting what we all obviously desire to secure—that is, the prevention of injustice either upon the local authority or the property owner, and, above all, the prevention of arbitrary action, or fraud, if contemplated by either of them, I will give consideration to other words. But I think it was agreed upstairs by the Noble Lord that these words really safeguarded the interests of everybody.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: No doubt as the Amendment has been moved it is hardly in accordance with the rest of the Clause. There is no question of resorting to a court of law, but to the Local Government Board under Subsection (4) of the Clause in question. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider this Amendment if the words "Local Government Board" were substituted for the word "Court" in the Amendment? I do think that an injustice might quite conceivably arise unless some such Amendment is accepted. It has occurred to me that conceivably a man, after a town planning scheme was approved, might improve his land from the point of view of agriculture. Perhaps a year or two after a scheme was approved a local authority might come in and say, "We want to acquire your land immediately for the creation of an open space." Under the Agricultural Holdings Act the owner of that land might quite possibly be entitled to compensation

    269
    for unexhausted improvements. But if he had leased his land for the purposes of agriculture he would not be able to get any compensation for these unexhausted improvements, because he is not to be entitled to claim this compensation on account of any contract made after the town planning scheme has been approved. It is quite clear that that will prevent reasonable compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and that in a case like that, where obviously he could not know that the local authority was suddenly coming to take his land, he should be able to get compensation as he would in the ordinary way, if he bonâ fide became entitled to it by improvements which he had done on the land not contrary to the town planning scheme.
    Viscount MORPETH: There seems to be a discrepancy in the Clause. The time is that in which application for "authority" is made. Then there come a sentence we are discussing which gives the Local Government Board power to fix the date. Then in the next paragraph the date appears to be a date on which "approval," or, rather, "authority," is given to the application. It is quite possible that the local authority might make application to the Local Government Board for powers, and that two or three months may elapse. "We all know that Government offices sometimes have a great deal of work, and that replies are not always expeditious. In any case there may be a great deal to be considered—an inspector may have to he sent down and his report considered—and it is quite conceivable that three months or more may elapse between the two dates. It does not seem to me to be fair to say to the owners that they must hold up all work during that period. The dates in the two paragraphs are nearly the same, and the second is the date upon which the authority shall actually act, and not the date on which the application was made.
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not desire to press these words unnecessarily, but I do think that the Government ought to consider this case of agricultural land and have it properly dealt with under a town planning scheme, because ideal land in the neighbourhood of a town should be developed in the best interests of the locality. The claim is approved, and for many years the land remains agricultural, and ought to remain so. It is prepared for the future, so that when the day comes to de-
    270
    velop it it shall be developed on right lines. As the Clause stands now the owner may well go on improving it from an agricultural point of view without interference with the town planning scheme at all until it came into play, and he would not be entitled to recover a penny of that expenditure after the date of the application scheme. I am sure the Government do not intend that. It would stereotype the land from the moment of the application, even if nothing was done under a town planning scheme for years subsequently I hope that although the right hon. Gentleman cannot, perhaps, accept the exact words of the Amendment, that between now and the Report stage he will consider the case, because I think it raises a very serious point.
    Mr. BURNS: I think the suggestions which have been made by the Noble Lord are in the direction of common-sense and equity. I do not definitely pledge myself to accept them at this moment, but I am willing to consider the point if the words "Local Government Board" were substituted for the word "court" in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingston. I think we may, between now and the Report stage, come to an agreement, and I am prepared to consider words. May I say that if the words "Local Government Board" were substituted for "court" there must, of course, be some limitation of the number of claims after certain date, and the amount of compensation to be made. I admit the question of unexhausted improvement from the purely agricultural point of view is a question that did not altogether manifest itself to us to the extent the Noble Lord has suggested, but I do not think we could indefinitely extend and expand the period. If we did we should have a sort of snowballing up of compensation which it would be very difficult to determine. As a matter of fact land, under these circumstances would not be acquired by the local authorities. It would not be bought for the purpose of being used as agricultural land; it would only come within the purview of the scheme with regard to arrangements, and probably an arrangement would be set up by means of which the owner of the agricultural land would have a portion of it, which was to supply roads and streets, divested from the rest under a town planning scheme. I am prepared to give that aspect of the case consideration.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert instead thereof the words, "In determining the amount of compensation under this Section regard shall be had to the extent to which lands and hereditaments belonging to the same proprietor may be benefited by the scheme."
    Sub-section (3) was put in by the Standing Committee, but I think the position was substantially different then to what it is at the present time, because the Finance Bill of this year had not then appeared, and most of its provisions were not even suspected. I think the Increment Value Duty of the Finance Bill has materially altered the position with regard to the "betterment" share which may reasonably be recovered by the local authorities. It is quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has apparently anticipated this objection, and has given notice of a new Clause in the Finance Bill, "where a capital sum has been paid by the rating authority in respect of the increased value of any land due to any improvements made by the authority, the amount of that capital sum shall be deducted from the increment value of the land for the purposes of the calculation of Increment Value Duties" But I do not think even if that Clause is adopted the position will be at all satisfactory under these town planning schemes, and I think a substantial injustice may be done to individual owners. The position, if this Bill passes as drafted, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment to the Finance Bill is accepted, will be that the local authorities will recover not a portion of the amount due. to the increment, but the whole of the amount due to the increment under the town planning scheme, and if there is any vestige of increment left then the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to come in to take his toll on that remainder. I think it is very unsatisfactory to deal with the increment from two directions. It would be very much better, I think, to leave out the whole of this "betterment" provision in the Housing Bill and rely upon the Increment Value Duty, knowing that the local authorities will get back their share of half of the gross receipts. Of course if that was done the question of compensation with which the Clause also deals must necessarily be retained in the Housing Bill, because there is no provision in the Finance Bill, and I think this Clause would be wide enough if it limits itself to dealing with Compensation to the owners. Apart from
    272
    the Budget, it seems to me the Clause is too wide. As the Bill was originally drafted the recovery of betterment from the owners was to be limited to the total amount which was payable as compensation, and no amount was recoverable unless compensation was due under the scheme. The Standing Committee was not content with the Clause in that narrow form, and they went a great deal further. Under this Sub-section they will have the power to seize any increment which arises under the operation of the town planning scheme. This means that they will not only be able to take the increment which results from the expenditure of public-money, but any increment in value from the development of land, even though caused by the expenditure of the owner's own money. The Schedule of the Bill lays it down, and Clause 53 covers it, that town planning schemes may be framed with the general object of securing the amenity and general convenience in connection with the laying out and use of the land. It does not limit the expenditure to public money, but it also includes a very large amount of private expenditure. Schedule 4 lays down that town planning schemes may deal with roads, streets, sewerage, and buildings; that is to say, a great part of the work need not be carried out by local authorities at all, but by private Individuals. It seems to me that under these proposals the betterment charge will be recovered in many instances where the increase in value is in no sense due to the expenditure of public money. This is quite a new departure. Even in the Finance Bill the Government only professed to aim at unearned increment, and where the increment had been earned by a man's own expenditure they did not profess to touch it. The lines on which the recovery of betterment can wisely be pursued have been laid down by the Committee of the House of Lords in 1894 on the subject of betterment, and the first paragraph of their Report states that:—
    "(1) The principle of betterment, in other words, the principle that where persons have property which has clearly been, increased in value by an improvement effected by the expenditure of public funds, is not in itself unjust, and such persons can equitably be required to contribute to the cost of the improvement. But the effect of a public work in raising the selling value of neighbouring lands is shown by experience to be uncertain. Whether, in any particular case, it is pos-

    273
    sible for a valuer to pronounce that such an effect has been produced by the completion of any public work, is a point upon which the evidence of eminent valuers differs greatly."
    That Committee was presided over by the late Lord Chancellor, and, as the result of the Report, Parliament has sanctioned local authorities recovering betterment in various cases. But it has always carefully limited that betterment to the result attending the expenditure of public funds. In the case of London, which I think may be taken as a type of these cases, the valuation is made before the improvement and again seven years afterwards; and the owner is charged three per cent, on half the enhanced value. Under this betterment provision in the town planning part of this Bill there is no provision of any kind for an annual basis. The owner is to pay not on the realised annual profits resulting from the expenditure of public money, but he has to pay a lump sum down for the imaginary betterment—probably largely due to his own expenditure and entirely on a paper valuation. It seems to me that this proposal has a very great objection to it, because you are taxing not on what the owners will receive, but on what you choose to expect they ought to receive. A great many of us, in principle, approve of betterment. Certainly I do, but as the provision in this Bill stands, it is so vague that I think it would be better to take it out altogether, quite apart from the Finance Bill, which is going to cover the whole of the ground by the Increment Value Duty I suggest that for the Sub-clause there should be substituted a provision to enable the local authority to give less compensation on account of the decrease in value to counterbalance the increase of value accruing to the same owner. In bringing forward this suggestion I am again following the principle of the Report of the House of Lords Committee on town improvements, because, in Section 6 of their Report it is laid down that: "If the owner has property which is found to be injured in its selling value by the same work, the amount of the injury should be considered in determining the charge to be imposed upon him for improvements." The Amendment which I suggest is the exact converse of the proposal laid down in the House of Lords Committee. I ask in paying compensation that you should consider the improvement in value which is received by the same
    274
    owner, and I believe if the Government will consent to leave out the Sub-section: as it stands and accept my Amendment, they will very much improve the Bill. They will get most of the money back again, from the Exchequer, and at the same time they will prevent the Bill causing a great, amount of injustice and uncertainty and consequent litigation. I beg to move.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I am glad to have the admission of the hon. Member and those who act with him in regard to this principle of betterment. After that admission it is not necessary for those who sit on this side of the House to discuss at large the justice of the principle of betterment. It has been universally pointed out that the difficulty in this matter is not in relation to the abstract principle, but our difficulty is in regard to its mode of application. In this case we are dealing only with one-class of betterment, which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment admits makes out a somewhat stronger case than, the ordinary case, namely, that the betterment which is brought about by the expenditure of public money ought to be placed on a somewhat different footing than the betterment due to other forms-of expenditure and the operation of the market.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: But this Clause is drawn much wider. It not only includes the expenditure of public money, but. a large amount of betterment which is the result of private expenditure.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I do not think that alters what I have said. We are dealing, with betterment brought about by the operation of a town planning scheme, and that is certainly public money.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: May I just be allowed to clear up this point? I do not wish to be discourteous, but I think time would be saved if I made clear what our difficulty is. It is that under a town planning scheme roads and sewers will be made and houses will be built by the expenditure of private funds, and apparently all that is included in the operation of the town planning scheme. The local authority will reap in the value of the land which results from these works which are not in any way the result of public expenditure, but which will be tapped for the purposes of betterment.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I was proceeding to explain that where public money had been expended that is admittedly a strong case.

    275
    I think the ordinary case arises by the expenditure of public money. I know there may be cases in which there is not necessarily any great amount of public money expended, or, in fact, where no public money has been expended; but, nevertheless, betterment may arise by the operation of the scheme which has been initiated and designed by the public authority. I do not think the distinction has been quite properly drawn. This seems to be a case somewhat between the two extremes. One is the case where public money has been spent and the other is where the increment arises by the operation of ordinary commercial forces. Take the case of a local authority developing by its scheme a considerable area of agricultural land. Of course, it can only deal with land which is ripe for building, but it greatly extends the building value. Take a building scheme which provides a certain amount of open spaces in relation to the population. You increase the quantity of land required by the population situated upon it. Whereas, under the old arrangement, they would have occupied some small contracted space, under the scheme the landowners are compelled to give a much wider and greater space; and that brings within the sphere of building values land that would otherwise have remained outside for some considerable time. People do not remember that in criticising the Bill. We are not destroying building land, but spreading it out over a greater area. There are some cases, therefore, where the mere operation of the scheme will give to the land a value which it would not otherwise possess. That is the case which I put somewhere between the case where there is expenditure of public money, and the case where the action is purely that of private enterprise and skill. That seems to me a case in which where, if betterment is to be collected, it ought to be collected. If it is to be collected at all, why should it not be collected in every case? The hon. Gentleman's Amendment makes a totally illogical and somewhat inequitable distinction in the cases where the community is allowed to take the benefit of the betterment. He says you may have betterment in cases where it has not inflicted an injury upon, or has injuriously affected some-today's property so as to give rise to a claim for compensation on the part of that person, and in that case the community is entitled to take credit for the betterment it has created. The landlord, in other
    276
    words, is told he is to take part of his payment in the betterment. Take the landowner who suffers no detriment whatever, but whose land has been wholly benefited. He pays nothing at all. You cannot make any deduction from his increment; he is asking for no compensation, and you cannot make him pay any betterment. That does not seem to be logical or equitable. We cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment. It seems to me plain that if betterment is to be allowed, it should be allowed in a case of this character, and should be collected from all those who have enjoyed it. The community is called upon to pay where it has inflicted a damage, and a corresponding right should be given to it to collect betterment where the community has created it.
    Lord R. CECIL: The Government cannot have considered this provision as carefully as it deserves. No machinery whatever is provided for ascertaining how you are to get at the increased values. There is no provision which allows for valuation before or after, and that is the only way in which you can possibly arrive at the increase of value due to an improvement. The Clause says you ought to be able to recover from the owner any actual increment of value, but there is no way of ascertaining what that increment is. The only way is to have a valuation of land as it is now and a valuation at some future time when the improvement shall have been carried out. There is, however, no provision for that. There is no trace of any machinery for that. Then there is another objection. I am by no means clear that there is any machinery which would enable the local authority to pay for any actual injury done where the injury has been diminished by the fact that the owner gets a better property. Take the case of a man through whose land a wide road is constructed. The land on each side is thereby benefited and increased in value, but the injury to the owner by the taking of his land for the road is greater than that increase in value. He does not, therefore, on the whole, get any increase in value, but he suffers a slight injury by the loss of his land being greater than the benefit to him arising from the wide road. I do not think the Government's words provide for that case at all. The Government would have to pay the whole cost of the road, and they would not be entitled to set off any of the diminution of the detriment caused by the creation of the wide road. I have never understood what the

    277
    Government contemplate by their town planning scheme. Sometimes they seem to contemplate one thing and sometimes another. Sometimes they seem to contemplate a mere elaboration of the building laws so as to secure that the development of land should be wholesome and profitable in the widest sense, and sometimes the laying out by a local authority of a city for themselves and erecting buildings of their own. The first case is what the Government have always told us is the main purpose of this Bill. Supposing the local authority lay out a scheme better than the scheme by which the owner proposes to develop his land, they would, as I understand it, be entitled to recover compensation. Could anything be more ridiculous? Merely for the laying out of a scheme on paper they would be entitled to recover from the owner the whole of the increased value of his land, because they had indicated to him a better way of developing his land than he proposed to adopt. It does not stop there by any means. Take the case put by my hon. Friend, which has not been answered in any way. One of the companies for laying out garden cities approaches a local authority with a scheme for developing land in the immediate neighbourhood of a town. Under the provisions of Clause 53, it will not be denied it is open to the local authority to adopt that scheme. It has merely to say, "Yes, go on with it. We approve it." The Local Government Board also signifies its approval. The land of a neighbouring landowner is improved by the establishment of that garden city, and the whole of that increased value under the scheme is to go to the local authority. On what ground is that done? The local authority did not devise the scheme or lay it out; they did not spend a penny upon it. Surely it is absolute nonsense to say that they are entitled to the whole of the increased value of the neighbouring land?
    Mr. BURNS: If the landowner's land is not included in the town planning scheme it will neither contribute nor be damnified by it. It will be altogether outside. It is only land that comes within the scheme that is affected.
    Lord R. CECIL: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his interruption. I am afraid, however, he cannot have read very carefully Sub-section (3), which lays it down that if any property dealt with by the scheme is increased in value, the responsible authorities are to be entitled to
    278
    recover that increase. That is the whole point: where any property is increased in value by a town planning scheme, whether it be within or without the scheme, the whole increase in value is to go to the local authority. I submit that that really is not common-sense. I cannot believe the Government intend that a scheme in which they have merely a formal hand, and for which they have done nothing except to approve, shall involve that the whole of the increased value caused by it is to go to the local authority. There might be some sense in saying it shall go to the people who develop their land in a wise way. There are still some not deterred by the predatory instincts of the Radical Government who are prepared to spend their money in developing their estates. But why, when they do that, should the whole of the increased value go to the local authority? It must be borne in mind that this has some connection with another proposal before the House. The Government are placing a tax on the increment value of land, and the net result of the legislation is this: Property on the outskirts of the town is improved in value by reason of a town planning scheme. The whole of that improvement in value is taken by the local authority. Then the Imperial tax-gatherer comes along and says: "Here is an increment of 20 per cent. The property has gone up in value by £1,000; £200 of that increment must be paid to the Imperial Exchequer under the Finance Bill of 1909." The unhappy landlord, having paid the whole of the increased value to the local authority, is, therefore, called upon to pay an additional 20 per cent, to the Imperial tax-gatherer. Could anything be more grotesque than legislation of that kind? One of my hon. Friends has put forward a modified scheme. I am not concerned to discuss that now. The question you will put from the Chair is whether this Sub-section shall stand part of the Clause. I shall vote against that with a clear conscience, because to my mind the Sub-section is absolutely indefensible as it stands, and I am convinced the Government do not intend the results which must follow from the wording. I hope, therefore, they will withdraw the Sub-section, and reconsider the matter before Report.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I hope the Government will really reconsider the position. The Attorney-General never attempted to defend it. Look at the effect of the Subsection? Suppose a town planning scheme is prepared in the heart of the country near

    279
    to land the owner of which has no desire for it to be carried out. The scheme may be passed, no work may have been done in connection with it in the form of building, but after a period of not less than three months from the date of the approval of the scheme the Local Government Board send down a young man who looks around the country and says: "This man's property has benefited considerably by its proximity to the new Garden City." The Local Government Board thereupon assesses once and for all, and without appeal, what this unfortunate landowner shall pay as representing the increased value of his property by reason of the introduction of the scheme. I am rather a pessimist in many ways. I take it that there may be some town planning schemes which, like other schemes of men and mice, may go awry. It may be that after the owner of property has been assessed for the supposed increase in the value of his property, by reason of some such scheme, the plan may prove to be a failure. The result may be that his property will depreciate instead of appreciate, and he will get no return from the local authority. It is on account of points such as these that I think it desirable this Sub-section should be omitted. The principle of betterment does not, I agree, arise on this particular Sub-section. This is not an ordinary betterment Clause; it is a Clause drawn in a way for which I venture to think there is no precedent. It is far too widely drawn. There are no limits as to the methods by which the amount of the increased value is to be arrived at. That is left to be determined on the ipse dixit of a Government Department in a way for which there is no authority. I, therefore, hope that the Subsection will be withdrawn.
    Viscount MORPETH: Apparently the Government have drafted this Sub-section so as to include all property that may be affected, although, from the interruption of the President of the Local Government Board, it appears that that is not their intention. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to modify those words on Report, or at some other convenient time. I must confess this opens up an almost endless vista. We have already, in a previous Sub-section, said that urban districts may go outside their areas into neighbouring country. Therefore, the question immediately arises how far afield these increments are to be
    280
    tracked. It will become almost impossible to follow the ever-widening circle, which can be best likened to the circles which are caused by the throwing of a stone into the water. That, I assume, will be removed when the right hon. Gentleman gets up to speak; but there is this further difficulty. Even after that modification is made, and although I assume it is the intention of the Government all through the period of the development of this town planning scheme, from its first application right up to its final development, that the land to which "betterment" has actually occurred, and which was comprised in the town planning scheme, should be made the subject of charge, yet the measure of "betterment" will in the vast majority of cases be absolutely insignificant. Practically, as soon as a scheme is made, or within three months at the outside, the application of the council that betterment is made will take place, but no betterment will have accrued at all, especially in more distant parts of the scheme. Under the Finance Act, the other day, we had an interesting speech from the hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. J. T. Walters), who described, with great elaboration and great knowledge, how the country round the towns is divided into zones, and how the outer zones had not any developable value, and, therefore, the mere fact that the town council have made a. plan and put it forward will do very little good away from the centre portions of the town. Therefore, the outside portions of their town planning scheme will really have no betterment at all, and indeed, as my Noble Friend, who spoke just now, pointed out, the town council will really, have done nothing, in many cases, to increase value by the mere fact that they have made a plan. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman may say that in that case they have really added nothing to the value of the land by drawing the plan in the town hall, and that no betterment will be charged. That may be so, but here again we have very little assurance, because the judge who is to settle this matter is himself a party or, to a great extent, a party in the matter. That point, however, has been discussed before, and I will not follow it up at the present moment; but for my part it does seem to me that there is a case in which the Government would have a very strong argument in favour of their betterment, and that is where you have actual "swopping" of land, to use a colloquial word.

    281
    9.0 P.M.
    Anyone who has seen plans in various books on town planning, as practised abroad, where owners surrender some of their land in order to receive a new plot of land more capable of development, will realise that in that case the community has given the owner something new and tangible, which is of value if, the present time, and upon which, if it can be valued, he ought to pay. Upon the Sub-section as drafted, however, it seems to me that it is more probable that outlying owners will be asked to pay upon something which they have never received and which they will never receive. My hon. Friend below me has pointed out, indeed, that in many instances it may be that the owner, or public development company, or public utility company, will actually have to pay, not for work done by the community, but actually for the work done by themselves, and this difficulty also occurs to me, to which I should like to have an answer. Supposing a public utility society submits a scheme to a town council in regard to a large property on the outskirts of the town. Supposing they propose to fit that property into the town council's own scheme. The town council see the scheme, approve of it, and adopt it as part of their scheme. The latter is then carried out, or begun, and the value of the land which belongs to the public utility society is, according to the hypothesis, increased by the town planning scheme—is that increment to belong to the public utility society or to the town council?. I contend that the added value is in no sense the work of the town council or of the community, but is the work of the public utility company, and they alone ought to profit by it. For these reasons, and because the Sub-section seems to be mischievous, I hope we shall have some attempt to elucidate it, or to put it upon a more reasonable basis.
    Mr. BURNS: The Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord R. Cecil), whose absence I can understand and appreciate, is not here to listen to what I have to say and to what the Attorney-General said, with greater precision than I can command myself. His knowledge of the law is "extensive," whilst mine is only "peculiar." The Noble Lord asked me one or two questions on this matter, which I am prepared to make an immediate response to. First, the Noble Lord minimised my task, by congratulating us upon striking out the words "or will be," which, if he will allow me to say so, does to a great extent dispose of
    282
    some of the points raised by hon. Members opposite, especially with regard to any hypothetical prospective value in the future. The striking out of the words "or will be" should confine the operation of the Clause, and certainly help in that direction. The Noble Lord will appreciate that point, but he followed it up by making a statement which I can only attribute to the fact that he was anxious to get that refreshment to which he is entitled. He followed it up by saying that there was no machinery in the Bill by means of which the various forms of betterment—I prefer betterment rather than increment in connection with this Bill—could be ascertained, or determined, or apportioned. I may, for the benefit of hon. Members and of the Noble Lord, read the machinery we consider for the moment to be adequate, in order to meet the point raised by the Noble Lord. It is contained in Sub-section (4): "Any question as to whether any property is injuriously affected or increased in value within the meaning of this Section, and as to the amount and manner of payment (whether by instalments or otherwise) of the sum which is to be paid as compensation under this Section or which the responsible authority are entitled to recover from a person whose property is increased in value, shall be determined by the Local Government Board, and the determination of the Board shall be final and conclusive, and binding on all persons." The hon. Members opposite may disagree with the method, or with the machinery, but we do think that it is machinery which is necessary and quite sufficient to determine the amount of betterment and its apportionment to the various interests affected.
    The Noble Lord went a little further. Appetite grows by what it feeds upon. He said, "What do the Government really contemplate by a town planning scheme? It is really rather late in the day for me to waste the time of the House of Commons by repeating what is the broad, general outline of the town planning scheme contemplated by this Bill. It is less to deal with actual property—that is, the dispossession and expropriation of private owners' land than would happen if that land was acquired and developed by a local authority for housing. What the Government mean by a town planning scheme is really this, that whereas in the past, without any town planning scheme, roads have been badly made, of insufficient width, with improper gradients, and in the wrong

    283
    place, and with no relationship to other roads with which they ought properly to have been associated, the Government by this Bill give the responsible local authority the power of initiating a town planning scheme for a certain tract of land which shall include not only agricultural land and in some cases urban land, but in a few instances land on which there may be houses and buildings, so that the development in the future of that particular tract of land shall be carried out on lines which will be more conducive to the health of the locality and to the benefit of the local authority, and even of the private owners, who, without such a scheme, would separately improve their property to the collective detriment of all of them, and, after 15 or 20 years had transpired, probably to the individual detriment of every person whose property was included in the scheme. For lack of a scheme slums would grow up,cul-de-sacs would be allowed, roads would be put in the wrong place and would be of insufficient width, and, generally speaking, there would be disorder and lack of organisation which this town planning scheme seeks to avoid. In nine cases out of ten the town planning scheme would consist less of proposals to expropriate and to buy land than to assist local owners of property to more beneficially lay out and plan that which is their own property.
    There is nothing in the point raised by the Noble Lord (Viscount Morpeth). It is admitted that if the area of land is a mile square all lands within the area of the town planning scheme are entitled to consideration in the matter of betterment or worsement or increment, however one expresses it. The Noble Lord says, "What about adjoining land outside the scheme proper?" He has put to me to some extent a poser. He says, "How far afield from the town planning scheme proper shall compensation be awarded? To what degree and to what extent and to whom and for what purpose?" We had absolutely in our mind when this scheme was drafted that abutting land close to a town planning scheme, even though it suffered worsement or betterment, should be considered in precisely the same relationship as land absolutely within the town planning scheme proper, but the Noble Lord himself has given one or two instances in which land abutting on the town planning scheme might be subject to great appreciation, and, in a few cases, it might happen, to a worsement. We think that the
    284
    tribunal and the machinery we set up, so-far as the amount of compensation inside the scheme is concerned, will be able to determine to the satisfaction of all parties the extent to which betterment shall accrue and to whom it shall be given. With regard to land immediately outside the zone of the town planning scheme proper, I am prepared to consider the point raised by the Noble Lords (Lord R. Cecil and Viscount Morpeth) between now and another stage. The Noble Lord should have rested content with the arguments he has used up to that point, but he went further and gave this instance: Supposing a public utility society submits a scheme of town planning. If it is wise, and up till now they have been very shrewd in their method of conducting their business, it would not submit a scheme off its own bat irrespective of the local authority. What it would do would be to go to the adjoining local authority and say: "Here is an opportunity for a joint scheme," and if the local authority was not amenable to such approaches, the society, like a private owner, would have the power to promote a scheme—I hope it will always be done through the agency of a local authority—and if the scheme is better than that of a local authority, there is no reason why the authority should not adopt it.
    Viscount MORPETH: In a case where a joint scheme was adopted, would it not become the local authority's scheme, and would not the society itself be liable to all increments on their property?
    Mr. BURNS: In that case the local authority would be the responsible authority promoting—and I have not the least-doubt that justice would be done to the public utility society in having effected that particular scheme. The Noble Lord said: "To whom does the increment belong in that case?" It would belong, in proper proportions, to both the society and the local authority. The position that the Noble Lord indicated I do not think will occur. If it did occur, justice would be done to the various interests represented. Let me give an instance. The Noble Lord knows Bournville, near Birmingham. The Noble Lord will agree with me that there are few experiments, both in the matter of the housing and town planning, up to a reasonable extent, that deserve more praise and credit for the promoters than the Bournville housing scheme. I am perfectly convinced that if the Bournville Utility Society or the individual owner

    285
    wished to extend Bournville the adjacent local authority would find it to their advantage, and the advantage of the community they represent, to adopt the Bournville plan. There would be no greater difficulty between the estate and the wider local authority than has already occurred between Mr. George Cadbury and the Bournville Management Committee. All the experience we have had of town planning, whether at Bournville, Port Sunlight, Hampstead Garden Suburb, or the Garden City at Letchworth, shows, broadly speaking, that railway companies, local authorities, and private owners have heartily co-operated in making the best of the situation in which they were jointly and severally interested, and I am convinced that the practical instinct that is peculiar to the English people in matters of this kind will so prevail that when there is a medium like that which the Local Government Board sets up all those questions of conflicting interest, confiscation, and who shall or shall not get the betterment will disappear down to a minimum. We believe that we would be able satisfactorily to dispose of that minimum by the machinery we set up by Clause 4 of the Bill, from which I do not anticipate any of the difficulties which are feared by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt seriously with any of the points raised by this Sub-section. He talked of the practical instinct of the English people. That is an excellent thing, if you do not unduly restrict people in the exercise of their practical instinct. One of the points raised was what would happen when a local authority adopts the scheme of some utility company or land development company. Of course, there would be an increase in the value of the property, and under this Clause the local authority has power to recover the betterment for itself. There is no power in the Clause to hand over a penny of it to the land development company. There is no power for the local authority to do other than keep the money. The right hon. Gentleman says that the money will belong to either or both, but the Sub-section is perfectly explicit that it will belong to the responsible rating authority. What authority has the right hon. Gentleman for saying that it belongs to either or both? I submit that there is no ground for that. In passing this Sub-section you are tying the hands of the local authority with respect to their powers in this matter.
    286
    Then the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point as to the possible risk of failure of a town planning scheme. That under the Sub-section will inflict great injustice on the owner, because you have this valuation carried out by the Local Government Board not less than three months after the approval of a scheme. If the scheme turns out a failure the landlord will have paid the whole of the betterment and got nothing for it. As the Sub-section stands, there is no limit as regards the distance within which betterment may be claimed from any particular owner. Is the right hon. Gentleman on the Report stage going to limit that to the actual precincts of a town planning scheme or not? What is the pledge he has given to the House as to what he is going to do on the Report stage?
    Mr. BURNS: I think it would be unwise if at this moment I were to say the distance from the outside point of the town planning scheme proper at which betterment or increment would accrue. I did promise, without confining myself to any precise details, that I would look into this, point. Supposing I were to say a quarter of a mile. The hon. Member would be perfectly justified in saying, "A quarter of a mile is ridiculous; it should be three-quarters of a mile." Others might say, "It should not be more than 150 yards." Being a Scotchman, I am in the habit of looking five minutes ahead, and I think we will come to a better decision on this matter if, without pinning myself to any definite statement as to distance at present, I promise to look into this question with a fresh mind and an honest desire to devise some method by which the point can be met.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I have the caution of the Scotchman, but not the blood, and when I am voting on a question of this kind I like to have it in black and white. Are these things to be determined by the Local Government Board without any direction in the statute as to the method by which the betterment is to be arrived at in connection with a particular property? I hope the Government will reconsider this point and not press the Subsection.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I unfortunately have not heard the whole of the Debate, but I have heard enough to fill me with a considerable amount of misgiving as to the effect of the Sub-section. My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that under

    287
    the Sub-section if an increment accrues it goes to the responsible rating authority. I think he means by that the local authority. The local authority has had nothing whatever to do with the making of the increment, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he justifies the giving of the increment to a person or a corporation that has had nothing whatever to do with the making of it. Am I to understand that if the increment arises from the action of a railway company he will give the increment to that company? I do not think that is at all likely. As far as I can see, the local authority is going to take the increment which has arisen not from any exertion of its own, but from the exertion of somebody else. If the increment is to be taken, it should be given to the person whose exertions have produced it. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the apportionment of a given sum of money to people who have done nothing to earn it? We hear a great deal on the Finance Bill about unearned increment; but here is a startling job to give unearned increment to the authority which has done nothing in the world to produce it. Under these circumstances I shall feel compelled to vote against this scheme unless some explanation is given by the right hon. Gentleman of how he has chosen to give this particular sum to people who have done nothing to create it.
    Captain CRAIG: There is one point which the right hon. Gentleman has not fully explained, and that is as to a situation which this Sub-section would undoubtedly create. Outside many of the smaller towns there are people who, from business considerations or motives of health, buy some piece of ground which they consider has some slight chance of improving in value as time goes on. In other words, they send their money hoping that in the end, if they ever have to sell, they will have a profit instead of a loss on the transaction; and they take a plot of ground on the outskirts of a small rising town, build a house on it, and spend a considerable sum of money. This Subsection, as far as I can read it, rather tends to crowd the people into the area which is covered by the right hon. Gentleman's limitations. Because if they go outside one of these town planning scheme areas, then all the time during their tenure of the small plot of land they have hanging over their heads this question of the limit, whether it is 150 yards,
    288
    a quarter of a mile, or whatever it may be, of the right hon. Gentleman, and then, instead of the small profit which they hoped to make on the transaction, they find that the local authority, by taking a town planning scheme of a rough and ready sort, will say, "Your investment has been a profitable one, but all the profit must come to us and not to you." That would be rather a dangerous principle to set up, because it simply means that anyone desirous to settle and build a house near a town will always have to choose within the area of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme in order to know exactly where he is. If he is inside the area, and increment takes place later on, the State takes one-fifth of it; but if he is outside the area, the right hon. Gentleman's responsible authority takes the whole of the increment value, and on the top of that the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes along and says:" Where is my one-fifth?" I cannot see how, after the long Debates on the Finance Bill, the right hon. Gentleman hopes to take the whole of this increment or how he expects anyone to go in for the legitimate enterprise of buying a small plot of ground and building a house, and making a home for himself and his wife and children, with the terrors of this Sub-section, and also the terrors of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Finance Bill before them. Another point is that the increase in value which has to be settled by Sub-section (4) is of such a nebulous character. Take the case of a small plot of ground in the borough which is near the sea, but within the boundary, and the sea front is improved by making a promenade and putting beautiful railings along it. Then, in order to prevent the man making a shilling—even though he improves the place and makes it a better residence than it was before, owing to the improved rent of the neighbourhood caused by this improved sea frontage carried out by some different Board altogether from that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in his Bill—perhaps a Harbour Board or some Water Board—the local authority will immediately plunge into this town planning scheme. What is a town planning scheme? A clerk in a town clerk's office is told by the clerk "there is a bit of improvement in this part of the town, draw up a scheme this afternoon so that we can get the whole thing into shape" in order that the Board which the right hon. Gentleman controls will be pleased to give the unearned increment of the increase which is occasioned by this

    289
    map which this clerk has drawn up in the town clerk's office. I cannot see any ethical reason at all on which the right hon. Gentleman can base an argument in favour of the Sub-section, and I shall certainly follow my hon. Friend into the Lobby.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'or' ['property is or will be increased'], stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 36.

    Division No. 566.]

    AYES.

    [9.36 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hodge, John

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Hogan, Michael

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Pointer, J.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hudson, Walter

    Radford, G. H.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Beale, W. P.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Rees, J. D.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Jenkins, J.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Joyce, Michael

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Bright, J. A.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Robinson, S.

    Brodie, H. C.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Brooke, Stopford

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Clough, William

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk, Burghs)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Snowden, P.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Crean, Eugene

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Crooks, William

    M'Callum, John M.

    Summerbell, T.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Massie, J.

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Tomkinson, James

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Mond, A.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Verney, F. W.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morrell, Philip

    Vivian, Henry

    Fenwick, Charles

    Morse, L. L.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Ferens, T. R.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Muldoon, John

    Waring, Walter

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Myer, Horatio

    Watt, Henry A.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Napier, T. B.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Norman, Sir Henry

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

    Gulland, John W.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Grady, J.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Winfrey, R.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Malley, William

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Young, Samuel

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Paul, Herbert

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    NOES.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cave, George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil. Lord. R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Fell, Arthur

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Forster, Henry William

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Stanier, Beville

    Foster, P. S.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Gretton, John

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Younger, George

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Hills, J. W.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hunt, Rowland

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Mr. Walter Guinness and Viscount

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Morpeth.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Mr. BURNSmoved, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "or will be" ["property in or will be increased."]
    Viscount MORPETH: As regards those words "or will be" to be struck out, I wish to ask whether the words later in the Sub-section will require modification or not. According to the later words, "a claim for the purpose" must be made within the time "limited by the scheme (not being less than three months after the date when notice of the approval of the scheme is first published in the prescribed manner)." If the words "or will be" are omitted, evidently the other words will run concurrently with the whole life of the scheme.
    Mr. BURNS: If the words "or will be" are left out, I shall necessarily have to consider the form of words to which the Noble Lord has referred in order to make them harmonise with the period mentioned in the first part of the Sub-section.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Further Amendment made: To leave out, in the same Sub-section, the words "or will be" ["any person whose property is or will be increased in value."]—[Mr. Burns.]
    Mr. CAVEmoved, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "by the Local Government Board, and the determination of the Board shall be final and conclusive, and binding on all persons," and to insert instead thereof the words "by arbitration."
    I do not move the Amendment, as it appears on the Paper, but I substitute "by arbitration." We have discussed this matter on previous Amendments, and the substance of it is that where damage is done in town planning it is not right to leave it to the Local Government Board to fix the amount of compensation to be paid to the man who is injured. I say that for this reason: The town planning scheme has been inspired and certainly has been approved of by the Local Government Board. The provisions of the scheme have been determined by the Board, which is in
    292
    favour of the scheme being carried out as cheaply as possible. The Local Government Board represents, or, at all events, is behind the local authority, and naturally the Local Government Board has a bias, no doubt an unconscious bias, in favour of the local authority and in favour of making the scheme as little expensive as may be. That being so, I say that to ask the Board to arbitrate between the two parties is putting the Board in a wholly impossible position, and it is not fair to the claimant. I do not want to insist on the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, as objection was taken to that yesterday on the ground of expense of two arbitrators and an umpire. I am quite satisfied to have a single arbitrator, the least expensive procedure, I think, that could be devised. The reason I suggest the words "by arbitration" is that the Arbitration Act will have effect, and if the parties do not agree upon a name then an application is made to the judge in chambers, a very simple and inexpensive proceeding, to name somebody to act. Thus the arbitrator is appointed by an independent tribunal. The arbitrator hears evidence, and gives his decision. I think that is the least expensive tribunal possible, and it is a fair tribunal. The only alternative is the Board itself, or an arbitrator appointed by the Board, and I do not think either is the right thing. I beg to move.
    Sir W ROBSON: I think it is somewhat significant that my hon. and learned Friend does not invite the Committee to adopt the procedure of the Lands Clauses Act, a procedure so well known to the profession of which he is a distinguished ornament. He has himself taken objection to that procedure, and there is scarcely any man acquainted with business who will not agree that it is perhaps the most expensive form of litigation known to man. I doubt whether the Lands Clauses Act does not really delay the ordinary proceedings of the court. My hon. and learned Friend thought that, but what does he put by way of substitute? It is a very much less cumbrous method. It would provide simply that the reference shall be to arbitration, and thereupon, automatically, the

    293
    Arbitration Act will apply, and there will be a. single arbitrator to be appointed by the court. That is a plan we have got to consider. As the matter stands now, the Local Government Board can decide for them selves whether the matter is really worth the cost of an arbitration. Most of these disputes will be extremely trivial. It is not a Bill under which it is expected great building operations will be carried out. It is a Bill which merely provides for the laying out of a plan with certain compulsory powers. That plan may injure some property and benefit others. It will be on a far smaller scale than schemes which involve the taking of large tracts of land. The Bill says that the Local Government Board shall judge for themselves whether all this requires an arbitrator or not. If it thinks there is sufficient substance, the nit says, by Clause 61, have an arbitrator, and, if not, then it says the matter will be decided by the Local Government Board itself. That is a more practical sensible plan than putting on the parties in every case, whether they like it or not, wherever there is a dispute—
    Lord R. CECIL: No; it does not.
    Sir W. ROBSON: I understand that the object of the proposal is to omit that particular part of the Bill which proposes that the necessity or the determination shall be decided by the Local Government Board, and to say that it shall be "by arbitration."
    Lord R. CECIL: I was dealing with the statement "whether the parties desired it or not." That is not so.
    10.00 P.M.
    Sir W. ROBSON: Of course, if the parties choose to agree they may do anything they like, bat if there is any dispute—and I am assuming there is a dispute and not an agreement, because it is disputes and not agreements that we are dealing with—neither of the parties can prevent the other from carrying this to arbitration. In other words, it substitutes for what would be a small inspection on the part of a Local Government officer litigation, with counsel and all the paraphernalia of a law suit over some trivial matter, whether a road passing in a certain direction did or did not affect the property of somebody. It is far better that a thing of this kind should be dealt with administratively, and that before a lawsuit is decided upon or permitted an administrative officer should
    294
    take the measure of the dispute and say, if it is a small one, "Really this ought not to be made the subject-matter of costly litigation"; while,-if it is a large one, under Clause 61 an arbitration will be allowed. I have heard Clause 61 described as being an absolutely novel und unheard-of Clause. It is nothing of the kind. It is taken word for word from an Act passed by a Government drawn entirely from the ranks of the Conservative party. When we want something which looks new we can always find a precise precedent for it in legislation passed by the Conservatives, and we have it in this case. Clause 61, which is put down as being something revolutionary, is taken word for word from the London Government Act, 1899, Section 28, Sub-section (3). But I will deal with that later. [OPPOSITION cheers.] What is the meaning of that cheer? Is it intended to imply that I wish to evade the point? It can scarcely be supposed that I have any desire to take up time in order not to reach a particular point. There has been a considerable consumption of time which I would have much rather have seen devoted to more material matters upon which the discussion of the Opposition would have been really useful to us. Especially on the last Amendment much time was occupied which might have been saved.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I scarcely think the Attorney-General can have heard a good deal of the discussion, or he would not have used these closing words, as many of us have curtailed our remarks on previous portions of the Bill. Do not, however, let us get off on legislation of 1889, which, for some reason, is not quoted; but let us, as fair-minded men, consider the position which the Government ask the subject to take up under this Clause. The Attorney-General is under a delusion if he supposes that town planning schemes are going to involve trivial matters. The whole purpose of asking for this elaborate machinery, as has been said with great truth by supporters of the Bill, is to enable towns which are rapidly growing to take a far-sighted view of the future, and to acquire large tracts of land in many cases, in order that the development of the towns may be suitably and worthily accomplished. In some of the instances, which are familiar to hon. Gentlemen sitting behind the Attorney-General, it has been necessary to take property worth £100,000 or £200,000. Suppose a town council wishes to take from a

    295
    land-owner property worth £50,000, which, added to other property, may make a really suitable and dignified scheme for the future development of the town. There have been cases in the early development of these operations by private individuals in which property to the extent of more than £100,000 has been bought from a single owner. Supposing the owner, taking a great interest in town planning and in the development of his estate, has, as a labour of love, laid out the estate with great care. The local authority, aided by the Local Government Board, says, rightly or wrongly, "This is not our idea of how the town should develop. It is not the scheme we desire. We propose, therefore, to have another scheme." The landowner may say, "I disagree with your scheme; I do not think it would be desirable for the neighbourhood, and I am certain it would be deleterious to my property." Supposing there is a long controversy between the land-owner, the local authority, and the Local Government Board upon that point, and that ultimately, after considerable discussion, in which a certain amount of heat must necessarily, be engendered, the local authority and the Local Government Board prevail over the land-owner. The land-owner has nothing to do but to acquiesce. He says, "I do not wish my property to be treated in this way; but as you are stronger and have compulsory powers, I will sell the property under compulsion." That is a position which may not infrequently arise. Already the two parties, the Local Government Board and the land-owner, will have got into active controversy upon the very point whether the scheme is desirable, and the land-owner has had to throw over a scheme which, perhaps, he has cherished for years, and upon which he has spent much money and care. The Government profess to wish to act in a spirit of harmony and conciliation towards the landowners affected by these schemes. Do they think it fair that they who have conducted this controversy throughout with the land-owner, who have perhaps got into heated controversy with him, who have overridden him, and taken away his property, should come to the House of Commons and say, "We are the persons who should decide what is the value of the property?" Is it really arguable? Surely nobody can pretend that that is just or right. The scheme proposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Cave), which has been treated in such a manner by the Attorney-
    296
    General, gets rid of the objections which are justly urged against the Lands Clauses Acts; it gets rid of the expensive tribunal of three arbitrators, and refers the matter to a single arbitrator, appointed in an impartial and independent manner. I really think that we have heard at present no reason whatever for throwing over such a proposal, except this, that in trivial matters the thing is better dealt with administratively by the Local Government Board. The President of the Local Government Board must know perfectly well that this question of whether a plot of land is worth £100 or £150 is not an administrative matter at all. I think that previous action on this Bill has justified me in saying that in administrative matters I have not been anxious at all to withdraw matters from the Local Government Board, or from the President of the Local Government Board. But the President knows perfectly well—if I may say so with respect—that he has neither the qualifications himself, nor have his Board, to give even a valuable opinion as to the value of land. Even if they had, a great point in such a Bill as this, which is to some extent an agreed Bill, is to satisfy the people concerned. Is a man likely to be satisfied with a decision arrived at by a tribunal with whom he has been ex hypothesi in controversy for a long time? I make this one final appeal. Really, every time I get up to speak I cannot help thinking that it is absolutely impossible for the body of Englishmen to say that an important decision on a question like the valuation of property, compulsorily taken from a man, should be given by a person, or by people, who are actually parties to the controversy of which it is the subject.
    Mr. BURNS: Frankly, it is really very difficult to satisfy the right hon. Gentle-man who has just sat down. What does he confront the House with? He said, whether the value of the land to be acquired is £100 or £100,000, the Local Government Board is not qualified to adjudicate on the method and price to be paid in either case. That implies that thought hon. Gentleman means that whereat is only a small piece of land, say £100 or £50, the Local Government Board as a tribunal is unfit for this particular purpose, and therefore it should be remitted to some other tribunal, which he implies is to be a court of law, or, failing a court of law, an arbitrator. We contend there is a difference between us. We contend that administratively it is quite competent for the Local Government Board to determine

    297
    in the machinery that we set up that in the matter of small pieces of land we would be able to determine that, just as under the Private Streets Act and in many other almost similar cases where it is done. In these the initial stages are arranged by agreement, and, finally, by the Board itself. The Noble Lord will bear with me for a moment. Let us take the other case—that of land worth £100,000. I venture to say, in the event of the Board—either now or in the future—having before it the question of a town planning scheme where land has to be acquired to the extent of £100,000, it is impossible, in my opinion, that the Board itself would constitute itself an arbitration tribunal to determine whether the amount should be £90,000, £100,000, or £110,000. It is most probable that the small pieces of £100 and so forth would be dealt with on inquiry by an inspector, and finally by the Board, but in the case of larger matters, which I do not think would happen as frequently as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, the Board would most probably appoint a single arbitrator. If that were done, the contention claimed by hon. Members opposite would be amply met. But that does not satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, that is the issue between us. We happen to hold a contrary view, and we happen to be in the position that in the final resource we can give effect to our views. The difference between us will, therefore, only be a Division. This thing has been discussed at considerable length. I have done everything within my power to arrive at a common agreement, if it were possible. But it is not possible, and I say to hon. Members opposite that it is really—I will not say absurd—but unreasonable on their part to ask the Local Government Board to forego its administrative right to deal with these small pieces of land and small amounts of compensation to be awarded, and to remit them in every case to an outside arbitrator, where the cost of employing his services might be almost larger than the total cost of the land itself. We should, in that case, not get a town planning scheme either promptly or economically, such as we aim at in the Bill. We have some precedent for our view in the shape of the Clause to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, though he did not read the Clause. The latter was passed by a Conservative Government. It is the Regulation of Railways Act. We have, I say, that pre-
    298
    cedent on our side, as we have common-sense on our side also with regard to the smaller pieces of land, and the smaller amounts of money. We can only resist the Amendment, and say that it is unreasonable for the Opposition to try and press even the alternative suggested by the hon. Member for Kingston. We must stand by our machinery and our method, and I ask the House of Commons to support us.
    Lord R. CECIL: I really think that the right hon. Gentleman would have done much better to have confined his speech to two of the sentences of it, namely, that the Government are of opinion that the Bill should remain as it is, and, secondly, we have the power—I forget his exact phraseology—to enforce our decisions by the weight of a large majority. I have never denied that power. The power of the Government is very greatly increased by the guillotine under which we are working, and which enables them to get a decision not by those who have heard the Debate, but by those who are engaged elsewhere. Let me call the attention of the Committee to the actual procedure proposed by this Bill. It is proposed in what the right hon. Gentleman calls small cases. There is nothing in the Bill about small or large cases. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is a figment of his imagination. The matter is left entirely to the decision of the Local Government Board as to what cases shall be dealt with, and in what way. He says that in small cases the Local Government Board are to decide administratively what compensation is to be paid to the man who has admittedly been injured by action of the Department, but that in large cases the Department will not deal directly with them, but will have the power to nominate the tribunal which has to consider the compensation. If such a provision was to be found as part of Russian law, hon. Members below the Gangway opposite would use it as a powerful argument why diplomatic relations between this country and Russia should be broken off. Just conceive what would be said. "Here is an autocratic Government which is going to decide administratively what compensation is to be given for property taken away under that Government!" I do not believe there is a single Member of the House of Commons who would defend such a provision in any foreign country. The right hon. Gentleman or the Attorney-General has suggested that there is some kind of shadowy precedent in the Regulation of Railway

    299
    Act. There is no precedent of the kind. There is no provision in the Regulation of Railways Act for taking property, or for interference with private rights at all. The Regulation of Railways Act is an entirely different matter. If I recollect aright, it deals with the administration and regulation of railways by the Board of Trade, and differences between railway companies and things of that kind, and therefore the Board of Trade is empowered to act as an arbitrator in such differences and to appoint an arbitrator to decide. That is the whole difference, and it has no bearing or relation to this case at all. The right hon. Gentleman says that, after all, this is a matter which will only be of small moment, and therefore no injustice will be done. I suppose that is the Radical notion of justice, but he is wrong even in that. It may be very large matters indeed. Under Clause 56 the local authority may pull down at all times all sorts of works and buildings they may find upon the land, and, as far as I can see, they might apply it to a well-built and finished site where they find streets too narrow; they may elect to pull down a house for the purpose of widening, and compensation in such cases as that is to be decided administratively by the Local Government Board, which has previously approved of the action of the local authority. I confess I deeply regret we have not had the assistance of several hon. Members opposite, who on another Bill did show some lingering recollection of the old principles upon which the Liberal party used to rest. When discussing the Finance Bill the other night several hon. Members rose to say that they disapproved of the principle of the Government authority imposing a tax and deciding upon the amount of the tax, and, secondly, that the Government should not be allowed to appoint the referee to settle any dispute between them and the other parties concerned. I am bound to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so impressed by these arguments that he put a Clause into the Finance Bill, of which I do not think anyone can complain as far as this matter is concerned. If that Clause had been put into this Bill, I am sure every Member on this side of the House would be satisfied. What difference is there between the Finance Bill and this Bill in that respect. In the Finance Bill the Government Department is required to exact the tax, which may be great or small, yet most careful provision is made by the Government, after pressure put upon them
    300
    from their own supporters from this side of the House, that the amount of that tax should be settled by a perfectly impartial tribunal. When we come to this Bill where very considerable injury may be done—it is not denied by the Government that injury might be done—yet all the Government proposes is that the amount should be settled administratively or referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Local Government Board. I venture to say that the proposals of the Government are absolutely indefensible, and were we discussing this matter under any other method but that of the guillotine the House of Commons would bring such pressure to bear upon the Government that they would be forced to give way. I do venture to appeal even to the small representative of the House of Commons present to-night to insist that the Government shall in this-matter not only meet the views of the Opposition, but their views, which I am sure every Member who listened to the Debate believes are views based on justice, and insist that a fair tribunal be granted to settle this very difficult and disputed question, and until something of that kind is done this Bill will never work smoothly or harmoniously.
    Mr. LAMBTON: The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that our opposition to this principle was absurd, and he afterwards withdrew that criticism, and said it was unreasonable. I think the action of the Government has been far more unreasonable. The President of the Local Government Board said, "Most probably I shall do this and that," and we are asked to pass this Clause on the chance of the right hon. Gentleman doing the right thing at the right moment. I would like to remind the Committee that the Lord Chancellor himself said in regard to Bills passed by the House of Commons, "They were so hurried and so little discussed that many of the recent Acts of Parliament were impossible to interpret in a court of law." There is now only ten minutes before the guillotine falls, and so there is no chance of discussing these questions. The right hon. Gentleman says he will most likely appoint an arbitrator to decide what he calls trivial cases, but when he says that he is only misleading the Committee. It is not the administration we are objecting to, but we object to the Local Government Board setting itself up as a tribunal in regard to its own action. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite was likely to always be at the Local Government Board his action, I

    301
    have no doubt, would be most reasonable, but I cannot trust his successors. The country cannot trust itself to the tender mercies of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, whether it be a large or a small matter that has to be decided in regard to this clause.
    Viscount MORPETH: The President of the Local Government Board says he has made attempts to come to an arrangement in order to meet our criticisms. I have sat all through this Debate, and the only indication of his endeavour to meet us has been that the right hon. Gentleman stated, when we came to this Clause dealing with compensation, he was prepared to do something to meet our views. That promise was made upon the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kingston dealing with land already built upon. I was one of those who said that although I did not agree with the Amendment, my vote was determined by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman promised that he was going to give us a more satisfactory tribunal to decide compensation for the house property pulled down. Had it not been for that promise I should not have voted with my hon. Friend. Now we have come to the Clause the right hon. Gentleman does absolutely nothing except say that he is tired of listening to this kind of argument. On a very important Amendment dealing with the possible pulling down of house property, the right hon. Gentleman said it need not be house property, but it might be a pigsty or a tool-house. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that of course the Local Government Board will not try cases of large amounts, and it may only be a matter of a few pounds; but, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, there is no guarantee to the subject, and the poor subject with only a few pounds no more wants them taken away from him unjustly than the man who has a large amount. What the right hon. Gentleman will not understand is the fundamental injustice of the position he takes up, which is that he himself and his Department are parties to the case. In many instances these schemes will be made by the right hon. Gentleman or his subordinates in office, and, having made those plans, he himself is coming in once again in the capacity of judge. There is no fair-minded man in this House, or outside it, who will not say it is just. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be said to understand the position. It is, so far as I am aware, only the Local
    302
    Government Board which takes up this autocratic and tyrannical position. We have other Departments which might apply the scheme. There is the Board of Education. Local authorities up and down the country have to buy sites for schools, but I have never heard of it being proposed that the President of the Board of Education should be called in to say what price the local authority should pay for a site. I see no reason why the Local Government Board should be exalted in this manner above every other Department, and should be outside and above the law in this matter. I think, as far as justice is concerned, a one-sided judgment of this kind is far worse than those cases of blackmailing with which a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman sometimes regales this House.
    Mr. H. C. BRODIE: I cannot help thinking it would meet with the approval of a great many Members on this side of the House, whose object has hitherto been to see the powers of the Local Government Board increased, and whose desire has been to see the Bill strengthened in various ways, if the right hon. Gentleman could to some extent meet the views of those on the other side of the House and give some indication of some concession on the Report stage.
    Mr. BURNS: I have only one word to say in answer to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. Rightly or wrongly, the House has, with regard to the acquisition of land for small holdings, adopted a single arbitrator and set up the machinery we have adopted and applied here; and if we were at the eleventh hour to listen to the suggestion of the hon. Member, and respond to the appeal, I can assure him that many points he has himself pressed, and much of the value he believes to be incorporated in this Bill, would be absolutely defeated. After a year's experience of a similar procedure and a similar method of arbitration under the Allotments and Small Holdings Act, in which no injustice has been revealed, we consider we are warranted in adopting the same method in this particular Bill, and to that method the Government respectfully adhere.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I must point out that the procedure under discussion is not the procedure under the Allotments and Small Holdings Act. The right hon. Gentleman leads me by the observation he has made

    303
    to say it is one, I will not say of the absurdities, but one of the extraordinary features of this Bill that there is one tribunal set up where you take land compulsorily for the purpose of housing and another different and bad set of provisions set up under the town planning part. So far from the right hon.
    Gentleman's statement being an answer at all, it is an inaccuracy, and it is an additional argument in favour of the case submitted by his own followers.
    Question put, "That the words, 'by the Local Government Board,' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 57.

    Division No. 567.]

    AYES.

    [10.20 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pointer, J.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hodge, John

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hogan, Michael

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Radford, G. H.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Hudson, Walter

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Reddy, M

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Jenkins, J.

    Rees, J. D.

    Bright, J. A.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Brodie, H. C.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Jowett, F. W.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Keating, M.

    Robinson, S.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lambert, George

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lamont, Norman

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Clough, William

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Smyth, Thomas F (Leitrim, S.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Snowden, P.

    Crooks, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Crosfieid, A. H.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Cullinan, J.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Summerbell, T.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    McVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    M'Callum, John M.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Massie, J.

    Tomkinson, James

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Falconer, James

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Verney, F. W.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Mond, A.

    Vivian, Henry

    Ferens, T. R.

    Mooney, J. J

    Walsh, Stephen

    Ffrench, Peter

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Morrell, Philip

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Morse, L. L.

    Waring, Walter

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Furness. Sir Christopher

    Muldoon, John

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Myer, Horatio

    Watt, Henry A.

    Glover, Thomas

    Napier, T. B.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Nussey, Sir Williams

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Winfrey, R.

    Gulland, John W.

    O'Grady, J.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Malley, William

    Young, Samuel

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Paul, Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    NOES.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Forster, Henry William

    Oddy, John James

    Balcarres, Lord

    Foster, P. S.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Pees

    Beale, W. P.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hills, J. W.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Stanier, Beville

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Fell, Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Cave and Mr. Walter Guinness.

    And, it being after Half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 15th June, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Clauses to be concluded by Half-past Ten of the clock this day, and on any Amendments thereto, moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (5), to leave out the word "local" ["from a
    local authority"], and to insert instead thereof the word "responsible"; to leave out the word "local" ["to a local authority"], and to insert instead thereof the word "responsible."
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 53.

    Division No. 568.]

    AYES.

    [10.40 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Duffy, William J.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jenkins, J.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Beale, W. P.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Jowett, F. W.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Falconer, James

    Joyce, Michael

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Lambert, George

    Bright, J. A.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Lamont, Norman

    Brodie, H. C.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Brooke, Stopford

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Glover, Thomas

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Lupton, Arnold

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Cleland, J. W.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Clough, William

    Gulland, John W.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swill

    Cooper, G. J.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    McVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    M'Callum, John M.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Henry, Charles S.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Crooks, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Maddison, Frederick

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Hodge, John

    Massie, J.

    Cullinan, J.

    Hogan, Michael

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hope. W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Mond, A.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Reddy, M.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Rees, J. D.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Morrell, Philip

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Morse, L. L.

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Tomkinson, James

    Muldoon, John

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Myer, Horatio

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Napier, T. B.

    Robinson, S.

    Verney, F. W.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Vivian, Henry

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Nussey, Sir Williams

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Waiters, John Tudor

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Waring, Walter

    O'Grady, J.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    O'Malley, William

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Paul, Herbert

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Snowdon, P.

    Winfrey, R.

    Pointer, J.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Young, Samuel

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Radford, G. H.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Summerbell, T.

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    NOES.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Forster, Henry William

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersflold)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Foster, P. S.

    Oddy, John James

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hoaton, John Henniker

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hills, J. W.

    Stanier, Beville

    Cave, George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

    Fell, Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Morpeth and Mr. Rawlinson.

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    CLAUSE 58.—(Exclusion or Limitation of Compensation in Certain Cases.)
    (1) Where property is alleged to be injuriously affected by reason of any provisions contained in a town planning scheme no compensation shall be paid in respect thereof if or so far as the provisions are such as could reasonably have been inserted in bye-laws made by the local authority.
    (2) Where provisions regulating streets, buildings, and other matters dealt with by the scheme (whether contained in byelaws, local Acts, or Provisional Orders) are, immediately before the approval of the schemer in force in one part of the area comprised in the scheme and not in another part, or different provisions regulating such matters as aforesaid are in force in different parts of that area, a person whose property is affected by the scheme shall
    308
    not be entitled to any greater compensation, than he would have been entitled to if those provisions, or, as the case may be, the most stringent of those provisions, had been in force throughout that area.
    (3) A person whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a. town planning scheme shall not be entitled to obtain in respect of any matter or thing for which he would under any other enactment be entitled to obtain compensation any greater compensation than he would have obtained if the scheme had not been made.
    Amendment proposed: At the end of Sub-section (1), to insert: "(2) Property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected so as to give rise to any claim for compensation under this Part of this Act by reason of the operation of any provisions inserted in a town planning scheme, which, with a view to

    309
    securing the amenity of the area included in the scheme or any part thereof, prescribe the space about buildings or limit the number of buildings to be erected, or prescribe the height or character of buildings, and which the Local Government Board, having regard to the nature and situation
    of the land affected by the provisions, consider reasonable for the purpose."—[Mr.Burns.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The Committee divided" Ayes, 206; Noes, 50.

    Division No. 569.]

    AYES.

    [10.50 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Barnard, E. B.

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Pointer, J.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Beale, W. P.

    Hodge, John

    Radford, G. H.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Hogan, Michael

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Rea Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Reddy, M

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Hudson, Walter

    Rees, J D.

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Bright, J. A.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.J)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Jenkins, J.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Robinson, S.

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Joyce, Michael

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Keating, M.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Clough, William

    Lambert, George

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Lamont, Norman

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Cooper, G. J.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Snowden, P.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Crean, Eugene

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Crooks, William

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Macdonald, J M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cullinan, J.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Summerbell, T.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    McVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    M'Callum, John M.

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Tomkinson, James

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Massie, J.

    Verney, F. W.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Vivian, Henry

    Falconer, J.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Walsh, Stephen

    Fenwick, Charles

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Walters, John Tudor

    Ferens, T. R.

    Mond, A.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Mooney, J. J.

    Waring, Walter

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Morrell, Philip

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Morse, L. L.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Muldoon, John

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Glendinning, R G.

    Myer, Horatio

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Glover, Thomas

    Napier, T. B.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Wirfrey, R

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Young, Samuel

    Gulland, John W.

    O'Grady, J.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Paul, Herbert

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hills, J. W.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cave, George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Stanier, Beville

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lane-Fox, G R.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Fell, Arthur

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Valentia, Viscount

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Forster, Henry William

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Foster, P. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord R.

    Cretton, John

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petcrsfield)

    Cecil and Mr. Hicks Beach.

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Oddy, John James

    Further Amendments made. To leave out "bye-laws" ["whether contained in bye-laws, local Acts"].—[Mr. Burns.]
    To leave out Sub-section (3) and to insert "where a person is entitled to compensation under this Part of this Act in respect of any matter or thing, and he would be entitled to compensation in respect of the same matter or thing under Any other enactment, he shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of that
    matter or thing both under this Act and under that other enactment, and shall not be entitled to any greater compensation under this Act than he would be entitled to under the other enactment."—[Mr. Burns.]
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 51.

    Division No. 570.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Joyce, Michael

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Keating, M.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Falconer, J.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Barnes, G. N.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Limb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Lambert, George

    Beale, W p.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lamont, Norman

    Beauchamp, E.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Bright, J. A.

    Glendinning, R, G.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Glover, Thomas

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Brooke, Stopford

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Charming, Sir Francis Allston

    Gulland, John W.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Hardie, J. Ktir (Merthyr Tydvll)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Clough, William

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    McVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    M'Callum, John M.

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Herderson Arthur (Durham)

    M'Mickint;. Major G.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Massie, J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hodge, John

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Crean, Eugene

    Hogan, Michael

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Crocks, William

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Mond, A.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Hope. W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Cullinan, J

    Hudson, Walter

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Morrell, Philip

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Morse, L. L.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Jenkins, J.

    Muldoon, John

    Myer, Horatio

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Napier, T. B.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Tomkinson, James

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott-(Bradford)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Nussey, Sir Williams

    Robinson, S.

    Lire, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Verney, F. W.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Vivian, Henry

    O'Grady, J.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Walsh, Stephen

    O'Malley, William

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Walters, John Tudor

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Paul, Herbert

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Waring, Walter

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Pointer, J.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Snowden, P.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Radford, G. H.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Winfrey, R.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Young, Samuel

    Reddy, M.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Summerbell, T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Rees, J. D.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.)

    Oddy, John James

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hills, J. W.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cave, George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Stanier, Beville

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt-Col. A. R.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Valentia, Viscount

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Forster, Henry William

    Morpeth, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Foster, P. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Staveley-Hill and Mr. Fell.

    Clauses 59 to 73:
    Question put, "That these Clauses stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 53.

    Division No. 571.]

    AYES.

    [11.10 p.m.

    Acland, Francis. Dyke

    Clynes, J. R.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Agar-Robartes. Hon. T. C. R.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Falconer, J.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Barnes, G. N.

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Beale. W. P.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Beauchamp, E.

    Groan, Eugene

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Crooks, William

    Glover, Thomas

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Cullinan, J.

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Bright, J. A.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Brodie, H. C.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Guest, Hon Ivor Churchill

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Devlin, Joseph

    Gulland, John W.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Duffy, William J.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvill

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hart-Davias, T.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Clough, William

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Mond, A.

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Mooney, J. J.

    Sherwell Arthur James

    Hodge, John

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Hogan, Michael

    Morrell, Philip

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Morse, L. L.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Snowden, P.

    Hudson, Walter

    Muldoon, John

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Myer, Horatio

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Napier, T. B.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Jenkins, J.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Summerbell, T.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Nussey, Sir Williams

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshrie)

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    O'Grady, J.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Keating, M.

    O' Malley, William

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Tomkinson, James

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Paul, Herbert

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lambert, George

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Lamont, Norman

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Verney, F. W.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Vivian, Henry

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Walters, John Tudor

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Pointer, J

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Waring, Walter

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Radford, G. H.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Reddy, M.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Macdonald, J M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rees, J. D

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Winfrey, R.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wood, T. M-Kinnon

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Robinson, S.

    Young, Samuel

    M' Callum, John HI.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    M' Micking, Major G.

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Massie, J.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Foster, P. S.

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Oddy, John James

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'ds.)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barnard, E B.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bowies, G. Stewart

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclcsall)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hills, J. W.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Cave, George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Stanier, Bevlile

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cleland, J. W

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Fell, Arthur

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    H. Craik and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    NEW CLAUSE.—Saving of Sites of Ancient Monuments, etc.—(Mr. Burns).—Agreed to.
    NEW CLAUSE.—Provisions as to Commons and Open Spaces—(Mr. Burns).—Agreed to.
    Mr. BURNSmoved after Clause 71 to insert the following
    NEW CLAUSE.—Provisions as to Land in Neighbourhood of Royal Palaces or Parks:
    (1) Where any land proposed to be included in any scheme or order to be made under the Housing Acts or Part II. of this Act, or any land proposed to be acquired under the Housing Acts or Part II. of this Act, is situate within the prescribed distance from any of the royal palaces or parks the local authority shall, before preparing the scheme or order or acquiring

    317
    the land, communicate with the Commissioners of Works, and the Local Government Board shall, before confirming the scheme or order or authorising the acquisition of the land or the raising of any loan for the purpose, take into consideration any recommendations they may have received from the Commissioners of Works with reference to the proposal.

    Division No. 572.]

    AYES.

    [11.20 p.m.

    Acland. Francis Dyke

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Gulland, John W.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Radford, G. H.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Haslam Lewis (Monmouth)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Reddy, M.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rees, J. D.

    Beale, W. P.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Beauchamp, E.

    Hills, J. W.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Robinson, S.

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Bright, J. A.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Brodie, H. c.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Lambert, George

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Lamont, Norman

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Cave, George

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Clough, William

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Stanier, Beville

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford, Univ.)

    Crooks, William

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Muddison, Frederick

    Tomkinson, James

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Massie, J.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Verney, F. W.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Mond, A.

    Vivian, Henry

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Falconer, J.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Walters, John Tudor

    Fell, Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Morse, L. L.

    Waring, Walter

    Ferens, T. R.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Myer, Horatio

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Fletcher, J. s.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Forster, Henry William

    Napier, T. B.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Foster, P. S.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Young, Samuel

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Paul, Herbert

    Gretton, John

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr

    Griffiths, Ellis J.

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    (2) For the purposes of this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Local Government Board after consultation with the Commissioners of Works.
    Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Ayes, 50.

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hodge, John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hogan, Michael

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Hudson, Walter

    Pointer, J.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Jenkins, J.

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Joyce, Michael

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Cooper, G. J.

    Keating, M.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Crean, Eugene

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Cullinan, J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Snowden, P.

    Duffy, William J.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Summerbell, T.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Glover, Thomas

    Muldoon, John

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Oddy, John James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Grady, J.

    Ramsay Macdonald and Mr. Keir Hardie.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Malley, William

    Mr. BURNSmoved a new Clause—(Extension of power of making bye-laws with respect to lodging-houses for the working classes.)
    Clause added to the Bill.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
    Provisions as to the Compulsory Acquisition of Land by a Local Authority for the purposes
    of Part III. of the Housing of Working Classes Act, 1890.
    Question put, "That this be the first Schedule of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 49.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Vivian, Henry

    Pointer, J.

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Radford, G. H

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Waring, Walter

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Reddy, M.

    Srowden, P.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Rees, J. D.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Summerbell, T.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Robinson, S.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Winfrey, R.

    Robson, Sir William Snowden

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Young, Samuel

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Tomkinson, James

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Verney, F. W.

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'nds.)

    Oddy, John James

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hills, J. W.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cave, George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Fell, Arthur

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F.

    Forster, Henry William

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Banbury and Mr. A. Smith.

    Foster, P. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Second and third Schedules agreed to.

    FOURTH SCHEDULE.
    Matters to be dealt with by General Provisions prescribed by the Local Government Board.
    Amendment made: To leave out paragraph 15 ["Suspension, so far as necessary, of statutory enactments, bye-laws, regulations, or other provisions in force in

    Division No. 574.]

    AYES.

    [11.40 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Cleland, J. W.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Clough, William

    Falconer, J.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Ferens, T. R.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Firench, Peter

    Barnes, G. N.

    Cooper, G. J.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Beale, W. P.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Glover, Thomas

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Crean, Eugene

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Crooks, William

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Cullinan, J.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Bright, J. A.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Brodie, H. C.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Gulland, John W.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Devlin, Joseph

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr-Tydvil)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Duffy, William J.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    the area"], and to insert instead thereof, "15. Application with the necessary modifications and adaptations of statutory enactments."—[Mr. Burns.]
    Question put, "That the Schedule as amended, be the fourth Schedule of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 47.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Massie, J.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Mond, A.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hodge, John

    Mooney, J. J.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Hogan, Michael

    Morrell, Philip

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Morse, L. L.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Snowden, P.

    Hudson, Walter

    Muldoon, John

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Illingworth, Percy H

    Myer, Horatio

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Napier, T. B.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Jenkins, J.

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Summerbell, T.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Joyce, Michael

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    O'Malley, William

    Tomkinson, James

    Lambert, George

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lamont, Norman

    Paul, Herbert

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Lardner, James Carrige Rusne

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Verney, F. W.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Vivian, Henry

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Waring, Walter

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Pointer, J.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Watt Henry, A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Radford, G. H.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Reddy, M.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Winfrey, R.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Young, Samuel

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Robinson, S.

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edm'nds)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Carlile, E. Mildred

    Hills, J. W.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Castlereagh, viscount

    Hunt, Rowland

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cave, George

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Fell, Arthur

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

    Foster, P. S.

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    R. Cecil and Viscount Morpeth.

    Gretton, John

    Oddy, John James

    Fifth and sixth Schedules agreed to. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Wednesday).

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  DUNOON BURGH BILL [LORDS].— (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. A. C. MORTONmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  I am sorry to detain hon. Members at this late hour, but this is a matter of principle in connection with the promotion of local Bills, and it is not my fault that I cannot get an opportunity of speaking upon it at another time. There are three or four reasons why I oppose this Bill. One is, that when the Bill was before the House last week

  325
  I moved an Amendment which I hoped would be accepted in some form. It was not accepted, and I got very little expectation. A fresh matter which has been discovered is that the Bill contains a clause which gives the municipality of Dunoon the right to charge what they like for people going into the park. The third reason for objecting to the Bill is that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire is able to be here to-night, and I wish to give him an opportunity of dealing with a matter affecting a portion of his constituency. In a notice sent round we are told that the Bill was originally promoted under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act by the Corporation of Dunoon for purposes immediately affecting this popular watering-place. I think that it is accounted popular, but if so, why do they want to spend more of the ratepayers' money in advertising it?
  With regard to these costs, it has been said that they are taxed and cannot go beyond a certain figure. Those who unfortunately have to do with Parliamentary costs know that taxation means nothing at all. I should like to be shown a case where the Parliamentary tax master has ever reduced the cost of these Bills. I have known cases in which he has increased them. In the preamble it is stated: "Whereas it is expedient that the Town Council should be authorised to make charges for admission to the pleasure ground of the Town Council known as the Castle Garden during the performance of concerts or other musical entertainments held in the said park." That appears to be given as a reason for spending all this money. In Clause 3 it is provided that "the Town Council may make charges of admission to the pleasure ground of the Town Council known as the Castle Garden during the performance of concerts or other musical entertainments held in said gardens as they may from time to time think fit." This park or open space was, I understand, paid for by the ratepayers of Dunoon, and it is kept up at their expense, and to my mind it is a curious thing that ratepayers should be forbidden to go into their own park without paying. What would be said if the London County Council or any of the other authorities who have open spaces were to charge the people for going in when a band was playing or when a band was not playing? I draw attention to this because it may be a very awkward precedent to have used in other cases if a town council in Scotland were to be
  326
  allowed to charge ratepayers for going into a park provided by their own money. That would be reason enough for throwing out this Bill altogether. Up to the present time we have had no explanation with regard to this most extraordinary Bill or as to why the House of Lords struck out so many of the clauses. As I understand, the ratepayers do not want this music or fireworks in their gardens, and they do not want the place made a music hall of at all. Consequently, they are not in favour of this expenditure, which, we are told, is not required. We have been told, again, that it would cost between £2,000 and £3,000, which means a rate of either 7d. or 10d., as the case may be. That is an enormous rate for so small a place. It is proposed, I am further informed, to spend £600 per annum, or a 2d. rate, to advertise the fireworks. That is another reason why we should throw the Bill out altogether. Dunoon is very heavily rated, and they have a debt of £120,000. In my opinion, it is my duty to protect these ratepayers. A plebiscite of the ratepayers could have been taken. It is said that 1,400 of them have approved in some way of the Bill, though a good many say that they were not in favour of the whole of it, and were never told at all that it was intended to borrow £80,000. Unfortunately, of late years nobody seems to trouble about economy.
  It is our duty to encourage economy, not only in Imperial affairs, but in local affairs. The happiness and prosperity of the people of this country depend more upon good local administration than upon Imperial administration. We have the high authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) for that statement. We have also to consider that it is so easy nowadays to borrow money, and that it is so easy to spend money that is borrowed. But the people who lend the money always take care to have the excellent security of the ratepayers, who have to pay the money back, whether they like it or not. Consequently, it is our duty to try and help these ratepayers against even their own representatives on the council, who ought not to be allowed to promote bills without having the legal right to go to the expense of doing so. We know that in this case they have not put a clause in the Bill to legalise the payment of the costs thereof. We were told in the course of the discussion last week by some Members that we should not interfere in these matters. That is not my opinion. It is not only our

  327
  right, in my opinion, but it is our duty, to look after everybody and everything, from a needle to an anchor, and to protect innocent ratepayers, who have no other people to protect them. Their money should not be speculated with. My opinion is that rates, as well as Imperial funds, are trust moneys, and that the authority has no right to speculate with them. No doubt they have a right to do certain things, but not to speculate or enter into any transaction which becomes a speculation and which may or may not be successful. In this case speculation has not been successful. There is too much of this squandering of public money imperially and locally. My opinion is that it is time a lesson was taught to these authorities as an example to the rest, so that we may show to them we intend to use our influence to protect the ratepayer and taxpayer as far as we can. The way to do that, and the only way I can suggest, is to throw out this Bill. The money to pay for it may be found out of common good or out of the fireworks. If they like to get it that way I do not care. But I do say that a rate of sevenpence ought not to be put on these people in this way. That is a serious matter, and if we had to pay it ourselves we should complain. I regret we did not have the opportunity of discussing this question earlier in the evening, and sooner or later Parliament will have to take up the question of the costs in these matters. I appeal to the House to do what is right and proper by the ratepayers of Dunoon.
  Mr. H. A. WATT: I desire to second the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. I have no doubt the House admires the way in which my hon. Friend has opposed this Bill. No sooner does he get a knock-down blow in one round than he rises to the next. The House is aware this Bill originated in the House of Lords, from which it came in a rather shattered condition, with only five clauses, two of which are simply interpretation clauses. This House has now an opportunity of dealing with the remnant, and I am sure if they understood the Bill they would think twice before they passed it. Clauses 3 and 4 override the general law of the land. On March 8th last an Order of this House was passed enacting that all private Bills promoted by municipal authorities by which it is proposed to create powers in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general law
  328
  shall be committed to the Local Legislation Committee. For some mysterious reason, on August 9th that Order was suspended in order to facilitate the passage of this Bill. If the law of the land is to be changed, it should not be done by a Bill of this kind. The law which Clause 3 overrides is that no charge can be made to the public for entering a park which belongs to the public. That is the law, at any rate in Scotland; but under this clause the town council of Dunoon will be in a position to charge the people any sum they like for entering their own park. It is also the general law that fishermen engaged in white fishing should be permitted to build a stand to facilitate their fishing lower than high-water mark; but Clause 4 empowers the town council to override that. The Bill is of importance in that it overrides the general law in those two respects, and on that ground it ought to be condemned by the House.
  Mr. J. S.AINSWORTH: As the Member for the county in which Dunoon is situated, I may perhaps be allowed to say a few words. I should certainly hope that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment would not put the House to the trouble of a Division. If he does I sincerely hope that the Amendment will be thrown out and the Bill carried in the form that it is. I have been cognizant with the Bill and with the intentions and policy of the town council from the commencement. If my judgment is of any value at all, the whole points of the Bill, which the town council ask the authority of the House for, are parallel to those that regularly come before the House, and are in every way deserving of the attention of the House. As to the three matters in the Bill with regard to the concerts the Corporation have already spent an extremely large sum of money in providing Dunoon with perhaps the finest public hall in the West of Scotland. The object of the Bill is to enable high-class music, concerts, and everything of the kind to be given in the season. Dunoon, as many of the Members may be aware, is the principal place on the Clyde as a pleasure resort for the citizens of Glasgow. The object of the town council is, in a reasonable way, to provide accommodation and entertainment for visitors and friends; and it should not be forgotten that in the summer time it may be considered advisable to carry on the concerts outside in the gardens, which are not the property of the town council, instead of in the pavilion

  329
  The town council are asking for power to charge for admission to the concerts outside as well as inside. In the interests of the ratepayers it is eminently desirable that they should have this power. The town council has also spent an extremely large sum in the development and improvement of the foreshore. Where they have spent this money on the foreshore—with the approval of the Board of Trade—they should also have the means of controlling what goes on there. Exactly the same clauses as these, as I understand, are in-

  Division No. 575.]

  AYES.

  [12.20 a.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Radford, G. H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Beale, W. P.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bright, J. A.

  Gulland, John W.

  Robinson, S.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Higham, John Sharp

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Stanier, Beville

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Clyde, J. Aven

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cooper, G. J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Waring, Walter

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Mond, A.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Emmott, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Mooney, J. J.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Falconer, J.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Ferens, T. R.

  O'Malley, William

  Ainsworth and Mr. Lamont.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  NOES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hodge, John

  Summerbell, T.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Crean, Eugene

  Nolan, Joseph

  A. C. Morton and Mr. Watt.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

CINEMATOGRAPH BILL.
As amended, considered.
CINEMATOGRAPH BILL.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Application of Act to Special Premises.)
  (1) Where the premises are premises licensed by the Lord Chamberlain the powers of the county council under this Act shall, as respects those premises, be exerciseable by the Lord Chamberlain instead of by the county council.
  (2) Where the premises in which it is proposed to give such an exhibition as aforesaid are premises used occasionally and exceptionally only, and not on more than two days in any one calendar year for the purposes of such an exhibition, it shall not be necessary to obtain a licence for those premises under this Act if the
  serted in other Bills in reference to other important corporations and have received the Royal Assent. I certainly believe the clauses in the Bill are in the interests of the ratepayers. In these circumstances I hope my hon. Friends will not persevere in their opposition to the Bill, and if they do I hope the House will pass the Bill by a large majority.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 11.
  occupier thereof has given to the county council not less than seven days before the exhibition notice in writing of his intention so to use the premises, and complies with the regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Act, and with any conditions imposed by the county council and notified to the occupier in writing.
  (3) This Act shall not apply to an exhibition given in a private dwelling house to which the public are not admitted, whether on payment or otherwise.
  Mr. G. J. COOPERmoved in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "used occasionally and exceptionally only, and not on more than two days in any one calendar year," and to insert instead thereof, the words, "connected with a church or chapel or mission hall or public elementary school, and are not used more

  331
  than one evening in any week from the first day of October to the 31st day of March in the following year."
  On Saturday nights large numbers of temperance and religious bodies give entertainments, at which a very large number of people attend. No charge is made at all in some cases; in many cases only a penny is charged, and at most only twopence is charged. The entertainments are very attractive and innocent, and they draw large numbers of people away from the public houses. A part of the entertainments is a cinematograph show, and, if the Bill is passed with Clause 7 as it stands, they will have to be closed. They are only to be allowed to have two entertainments a year, and then they have to apply to the licensing authority and carry out the regulations they make. The licensing authority may impose such stringent conditions that it would be impossible to have these entertainments. I hold in my hand a letter from a prominent gentleman in South London, the pastor of a church. He has on Saturday nights entertainments in connection with his church. Thinking he would see what the practice is going to be, he asked the London County Council what the conditions would be if he applied for a licence. They came and saw his place, and saw he had a wooden gallery and wooden ceiling. They told him they could not license the hall unless he did away with the wooden gallery and wooden roof. It will be simply impossible, if they are to be compelled to make large and expensive structural alterations, to carry on these entertainments.
  I can assure the House that there is very little danger at all in these exhibitions; the regulations laid down are so strict and the precautions for the protection of the machinery are so great as to render it practically impossible for any serious fire to happen. Only one celluloid apparatus comes before the light at a time, and the film is simply of the size of a postage stamp. It does not catch fire except through bad and careless handling. The real danger is not one of fire. The only person in any danger is the operator in the iron chamber. I know of no case in England where a person has been killed by fire from one of these cinematographs. In Mexico, where fatalities have occurred, they had in use apparatus of a very ancient date, but the machinery is now brought to such perfection that it is very difficult for a fire to occur. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see his
  332
  way to deal with these places without insisting on considerable structural alterations, I am sure he has no desire to deprive places small in size of these opportunities for entertainment, but if the Clause goes through in its present form undoubtedly this class of entertainment will be effectually killed because the promoters will not be able to carry out the necessary structural alterations. All I ask is that where entertainments are given once a week in a church, chapel, mission hall, or public elementary school, the promoters shall not have to apply for a licence but shall merely be required to carry out the regulations laid down by the Home Secretary which, I believe, will be most effectual in preventing fire.
  Mr. LARDNERseconded the Amendment. In many districts there are no public halls, and the only chance the people have of an entertainment is when the local clergyman arranges for a cinematograph. As the Bill at present stands, that would be absolutely impossible. According to Clause 2 the County Council may grant a licence to such persons as they think fit—being the owners or occupiers of the building. I should like to know if the clergyman would be held to come within the meaning of the Clause as the owner or occupier of the church for the purposes of this Act. So far as I can understand, the effect of this question of the ownership of churches, the clergyman is neither the one nor the other, and that being so, it would be impossible as the Bill stands for any one of these entertainments to take place in a building belonging to the church in Ireland. The consequence would be that the people, where there was no public hall, would be precluded from having any entertainment at all. I beg to second this Amendment.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Gladstone): I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The object of the clause, as the House will see, is to provide for occasional, as distinct from regular, performances, which are dealt with under Clause 2. My hon. Friend proposes to strike out the occasional form altogether and to substitute other words which would authorise regular performances on one evening a week for six months of the year. Performances of that character come under Clause 2, and it is right that those who permit the entertainment should pay the fee of one pound. It is a small matter. My hon. Friend not

  333
  only extends the casual performances to six months in the year, but he proceeds to limit this proposal to performances connected with a church, or chapel, or mission hall, or public elementary school. The hon. Member who seconds his Amendment, has drawn attention to what he thinks will be the rigour of the Bill, but I would point out to him that the Amendment which he is seconding makes it much more severe from his point of view, because it does interfere with those casual performances which we, under this very Bill, and under this very clause, are trying to safeguard. Therefore, I hope he will not persist in seconding the Amendment. My hon. Friend seems to think he is acting on behalf of certain bodies of people, but they have made no representations to me, although this Bill has been introduced for several months, that they have a great deal to fear from the drastic regulations of the County Council. Does my hon. Friend contend that County Councils are not to be trusted with this somewhat easy and humble task. Surely they can look after the safety of the people in these small places in various parts of the country. My hon. Friend says he has had representations made to him, and so have I. The London County Council and 14 of the Metropolitan Boroughs have made most urgent representations to my Department on account of the danger of these performances. To show how unfit the County Councils are to perform these duties, the hon. Member instanced a case in which they interfered to stop a performance in a wooden building which was unsuited in every way. I do not deny that when you have a cinematograph exhibition properly regulated it is not a dangerous thing in itself, and though a film may take fire there is no danger of the fire spreading. But there is in many places no existing power of enforcing the use of an iron box. It is not only that there is a danger from fire. A film may flare up and cause a panic, which is so dangerous. We wish to see that wherever these performances are given the arrangements shall ensure safety. It is not in the least the intention of the Department to insist upon unreasonable or unnecessary regulations.
  Sir DANIEL GODDARD: I think there is a great deal in the right hon. Gentleman's answer with regard to the regular performances which are mentioned in the Amendment, but could he not consider in-
  334
  creasing the number of casual performances? Two in a year is rather an absurd limit. I have used a cinematograph constantly myself, and know what accidents can happen with it. But under the present circumstances I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman means by saying there are no regulations. In my own town the local authority has made regulations, and has insisted on me having an iron box. I know a place where a children's party is given once a month throughout the winter, and it is a common form of entertainment to have a cinematograph. That will be quite cut out by this Bill. It would not interfere with the efficiency of the Bill to increase the number, and it would maintain the usefulness of the entertainments.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: I do not think the Home Secretary has quite met the point that under the Clause as it stands the county council will not be able to grant licences in the cases raised by the Amendment. The Clause is perfectly clear and says the county council may grant as they think fit licences to such persons being owners or occupiers of the premises. In a large majority of cases clergymen do not come in under either description. They are neither owners nor occupiers of the premises, and therefore the county councils could not be empowered to grant licences to them at all. We are in some little difficulty to-night for there is no Law Officer of the Crown present to tell as what would be the likely construction put upon the Clause by a court. With every respect for the opinion of the Home Secretary on other matters, I do not know that he himself would pose as a legal authority. As the Clause stands it seems to me that a licence could not be granted to a clergyman for the use of a church for this purpose.
  There is a second matter which I think deserves consideration. In Ireland county councils only meet quarterly. [An HON. MEMBER: "A committee can act."] committee meetings are held more often, and if committees have authority to grant licences that would, of course, meet the point. I am in favour of some Amendment being made. While I admit the reasonableness of the point made by the Home Secretary, I think he should agree to have Amendments introduced in another place in order to minimise the inconvenience to people who will come within the scope of the Act. I make that suggestion especially in view of the fact, which I

  335
  think has been strongly urged, that this Bill begins at the wrong end altogether. It is not the building which should be licensed, but the operator. The danger does not come from the building at all, but from incompetent operators. If the Home Secretary would confer with the cinematograph firms throughout the country, he would find that they themselves, for their own protection and for the advance of this industry, decided to hold examinations for operators with the view to the issue of certificates to those persons who were found to be competent. The manufacturers were obliged to reject 50 per cent, of those who came forward to be examined, and the very men who were rejected are giving demonstrations in the working of the cinematograph practically every night in the year. I think that is a strong point as showing that the danger does not come from the buildings but from incompetent operators. I know there would be difficulty in regard to the granting of certificates to cinematograph operators. I know that the Home Secretary does not see his way to make arrangements for the granting of such certificates, but surely with the large staff of factory inspectors in connection with the Department it would be possible to devise some scheme under which certificates could be given to operators who were found to have some scientific knowledge, and to exclude men who have no scientific training and no knowledge of the work in which they engage. For these reasons I hope the Home Secretary will confere with the Law Officers in order to ascertain what will be the exact position of clergymen who are neither owners nor occupiers of churches.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I do not think these particular words are necessary, but, of course, I will consider the point which has been raised. As regards the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Sir D. Goddard), I agree that two would be rather too small a number for this purpose. If he would move that the number should be five or six—[An HON. MEMBER: "Six"]—I would accept the Amendment. As regards the other point raised, I will also consider that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) to omit the word "two" ["on more than two days"] and to insert instead thereof the word "six."—[Sir Daniel Goddard.]

  CLAUSE 11.—(Short title and commencement.)
  This Act may be cited as the Cinematograph Act, 1909, and shall come into operation on the first day of August, nineteen hundred and nine.
  Amendment made: To leave out the words "August, nineteen hundred and nine" and to insert instead thereof the words "January, nineteen hundred and ten."—[Mr. Gladstone.]
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the third time."
  Mr. J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I would like to protest against the form of this Bill. It has been impossible to raise the question before. Under this Bill, county councils are to exercise their powers in non-county boroughs. The non-county boroughs have a better knowledge of the conditions of building in these boroughs, and of everything necessary to carry out the regulations under this Bill than is possessed by the county council, yet all the power is put into the hands of the latter body. This may be all right in counties where there are only small agricultural towns; but where, as with the case of Lancashire and Yorkshire, you have very large non-county boroughs with all their own powers and regulations, it does seem curious to put the county council over the heads of the authorities who have far more experience of these matters. There is a very strong feeling as to the undesirability of allowing the county councils to override these non-county boroughs, and I trust that the Government on reconsidering the matter will not place these non-county boroughs under the jurisdiction of the county councils.
  Mr. JOHN MOONEY: It has become a habit in respect of these Departmental Bills to put in the hands of Members the original draft, not the Bill in its amended form. This practice causes difficulty and confusion. I do not say that many alterations have been made in this Bill, but I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in the case of Bills connected with his Department, the amended Bill should be in the hands of Members.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I agree in principle with the hon. Member, but in this instance the alterations which have been made were so few, and the pressure of work was so great, that it was not thought worth while to reprint the Bill. I will, however, bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.

  337
  In reference to the observations of the lion. Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Mr. Harmood-Banner), if there was such a strong feeling in the quarters which he represents, it would have been better if the matter had been brought to my attention some months ago when the Bill was first introduced instead of on the third reading.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. A. H. Scott) and myself, who took this in hand, were taking a little rest after our arduous labours.
  Mr. J. C. LARDNER: I do not oppose the Bill; I rather welcome it. There are Church properties in Ireland which are under no title whatever. There are no trustees, and the title is one of prescription, and in no sense could the person be considered as either the owner or occupier of the premises. Unless something is done to make the matter clear, it will be absolutely impossible to get a licence for such buildings. I would like to know whether the Home Secretary will have the matter seen to in another place?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I will do so.
  Mr. T. B. SILCOCK: I agree with the lion. Member opposite as to the boroughs, and it seems to me extraordinary that the county councils should be put over the borough authorities, who know the circumstances of the case.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

TELEGRAPH [ARBITRATION].
Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
TELEGRAPH [ARBITRATION].

  CLAUSE 2.—(Procedure of Commission.)
  All proceedings relating to any difference directed to be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission under this Act shall be conducted by the Commission in the same manner as any other proceeding is conducted by them under the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1873 and 1888, or any Act amending the same and any Order of the Commission on any such difference or question shall be enforceable as any other Order of the Commission. Provided that any matter of difference or any question arising before the Commission under this Act may in the discretion of the Commission and with the consent of the parties be heard and determined by the
  338
  two appointed Commissioners, whose Order shall be deemed to be the Order of the Commission.
  Amendment made: At the end of the Clause to add the words, "and that the costs of every proceeding before the Commission shall be in the discretion of the Commission."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

WEEDS AND AGRICULTURAL SEEDS [IRELAND].
As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
Whereupon Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at One minute after One o'clock.